IN THE COMMENTS: Titus says:
Normally I don't believe polls because they are liberal and biased but this one I definitely support.
thank you and good day fellow republicans.
November 20, 2009
Obama drops to 49%.
"Of the post-World War II presidents, Obama now is the fourth fastest to drop below the majority approval level, doing so in his 10th month on the job. Gerald Ford dropped below 50% approval during his third month in office, and Bill Clinton did so in his fourth month. Ronald Reagan, like Obama, also dropped below 50% in his 10th month in office, though Reagan's drop occurred a few days sooner in that month (Nov. 13-16, 1981) than did Obama's (Nov. 17-19, 2009)."
IN THE COMMENTS: Titus says:
IN THE COMMENTS: Titus says:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
116 comments:
I blame it on your BHTV episode!
wv: slops - Ann, do you select these words?
Where is the "Obama is like Ronald Reagan" tag?
wv: hedin - As in Obama's hedin lower in the polls.
Normally I don't believe polls because they are liberal and biased but this one I definitely support.
thank you and good day fellow republicans.
This is something Lyndon Johnson would have handled with a few dollars spread judiciously amongst the pollsters.
But Clinton only got 42% of the popular votes in 1992. Obama got 56% as I recall. Dithering is better than lying, but it is a close call. I blame this on McChrystal for telling Obama that if nothing was done in 12 months that it would be too late to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. After that report Obama set his goal on a 12 month study of the decision. You cannot rush such a thoughtful leader.
Clearly, when you look at the list, the polls are pretty meaningless.
Here's a headline:
"Presidents get crappy numbers when the economy tanks, no matter why"
This is not a liability unless it drops a smidgen lower and stays there for months.
On the other hand, it certainly doesn't help in a time he's also being berated by the more strident on his own side of the isle.
The difference is that with Ford, Reagan and even Clinton falling below 50% was performance based not person based disapproval. Once you don't like someone you're not going to vote for him again.
To provide context, I think Bush II's trajectory would have put him under 50%, if his popularity hadn't been suddenly elevated by our response to the September 11 attacks. I suspect that Obama falling this low this fast is as much an artifact of the modern post-Nixon presidency -- Reagan, through Obama -- as it is an artifact of Obama's own failings and limitations. I don't know why Bush I didn't fall as fast. Maybe he got a boost from the Berlin Wall? Or maybe his old-fashioned good breeding served him well (haha).
I can only shake my head and muse, "49% approve"?
The difference is that with Ford, Reagan and even Clinton falling below 50% was performance based not person based disapproval. Once you don't like someone you're not going to vote for him again.
I don't think we know enough yet to know if the disapproval is personality-based. Most people polled aren't even paying attention. If the economy recovers -- even a little -- Obama will get a bump.
The part that says "Reagan" should be highlighted.
His recession ended in a huge recovery. Obama should keep that part in mind, and Republicans shouldn't invest too much in the recession. It will end.
People will vote based on conditions in 2012, not 2009.
That may not save Congress, of course.
Remember how all the Carterphiles gloated when Reagan's approval rating dipped below 50%?
Me neither.
That's because there were no Carterphiles.
I remember when Democrats were hammering Reagan on unemployment. The 1982 recession was bad.
This one is worse.
His recession ended in a huge recovery. Obama should keep that part in mind, and Republicans shouldn't invest too much in the recession. It will end.
The fundamental difference, of course, is that every action Reagan took after entering office was actually beneficial to the economy, as opposed to Obama's actions, which are actively destructive to it.
Remember how all the Carterphiles gloated when Reagan's approval rating dipped below 50%?
Me neither.
I do. You obviously weren't paying attention. I sense a pattern.
Most of the Carterphiles had died already from pancreatic cancer.
"You cannot rush such a thoughtful leader."
If thoughtful means he simply is not up to this job and he's probably pissed that no one told him it would be this hard, then, yeah, he's thoughtful.
"That's because there were no Carterphiles."
Oh, so true. People are still embarrassed to have voted for him. Even die-hard Dems (who'll deny their embarrassment but they are lying.)
Remember how all the Carterphiles gloated when Reagan's approval rating dipped below 50%?
Me neither.
I do. Very definitely I do.
Rasmussen, which has a much better track record than Gallup, has had Obama below 50% for months now.
"[Obama's chickens are coming home to roost."
"Don't let [Obama] turn you around because [he's] just making stuff up. That's what [he does]. [He tries] to bamboozle you, hoodwink you."
Are some of the dupes reviving? It's too early to tell.
I like the way Real Clear Politics aggregates the various polls on a rolling basis.
www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
I'm looking forward to when it forms an "X" pattern. Still about a 7 point spread between "Approve" & "Disapprove"
FLS;
I can remember the disapproval of Reagan at the time. I was one of them. But for those who supported BO they should have hope, by 2012 it may be Morning in America again.
@OriginalMike
13% of the population is black, and among blacks Obama has 90% job approval. That's a quarter of the 49% approving right there.
Rasmussen, which has a much better track record than Gallup, has had Obama below 50% for months now.
True, but as of today, it's showing up in not just 1 major poll, but THREE major polls: Rasmussen, Quinnipac, and Gallup.
Looking forward to the comments from those who love to cite the past bad (poll) numbers of Bush and now the current bad poll numbers of Palin.
OriginalMike:
I can only shake my head and muse, "49% approve"?
You didn't watch last night's Divalog er, Diavlog did you?
Althouse's intelligent, well-educated, nuanced, thoughtful opponent still thinks Obambi is doing a "great" job.
Henry said...
Clearly, when you look at the list, the polls are pretty meaningless.
Here's a headline:
"Presidents get crappy numbers when the economy tanks, no matter why"
Good point by Henry.
And look at the post-9/11 approval ratings the bumbling Dubya had at this very same time in his 1st year, 8 years ago - 78% public approval of the Churchillian Great War Leader Himself.
Then Maximum Beloved War Leader Bush cratered into Carter poll numbers at the end of his hapless, detrimental to America Presidency - 28% approval.....
So as far as Obama goes, from BOTH the Reagan and Bush II examples, a 1st year poll is pretty meaningless.
Still, he came in with 56% approval, rising to 63% in his first month or so, and a steep slope down since.
I expect they will decrease further, as his silver-tongued lengthy orations laden with BS and promises see no concrete results. And the grace period where Obama can blame every bad thing that happened with the economy on Bush and his negligence in overfocusing on Iraq and his "Heroes in uniform" wears out at about the 1-year point.
Comparisons with Reagan's polls at the same point are flawed, because Reagan was constantly under attack from a hostile, liberal MSM, at a time when the MSM was everything. In 1981 there was no Rush, no Fox News... basically just the NY Times and the three broadcast networks, all of which worked hard to spin everything as negatively as possible for Reagan.
Whereas Obama of course has been propped up by an adoring MSM, which has functioned essentially as state-run media.
Give Obama the same amount of negative coverage as Reagan, and he'd be 10 points lower.
If this map doesn't turn around soon, the Dems are toast in 2010. The policies they're pursuing will just about ensure a jobless recovery, so the only question is whether this turns by 2012:
http://cohort11.americanobserver.net...ediafinal.html
This map slideshow looks like some kind of zombie outbreak that spreads from the West Coast and the Mississippi River Valley and consumes all U.S. territory except the Great Plains/Rocky Mtn states.
Jon-
That's why if we had a President McCain right now his approval numbers would probably be in the 30s. Even if the economy was exactly the same.
Reagan got down into the 30s, IIRC.
And I really do hope that the economy roars back and the President gets high approval numbers as a result. If he can make us prosperous again, good for him. If not, let's fire him.
Whereas Obama of course has been propped up by an adoring MSM, which has functioned essentially as state-run media.
Yes, but who's listening? They're much, much less influential than they were under Reagan, and they're counterbalanced by news sources like the internet and talk radio that were much less prominent then (I think -- I don't actually know when talk radio became big). And look at media market share. Yes, cable news only reaches a tiny fraction of the public, but there, Fox -- which has not adopted the usual sycophantic tone towards Obama -- apparently has over 50% of the market. I would guess that overall, across all news and media sources, the "Left" coverage and the "Right" coverage are reaching about the same number of people. And as embarassments and gaffes mount, even "MSM" coverage has become a little less lickspittle than it was.
And I really do hope that the economy roars back and the President gets high approval numbers as a result. If he can make us prosperous again, good for him.
With the policies BHO is pursuing there is 0% chance of a job-ful recovery by 2012. He's toast.
"...except the Great Plains/Rocky Mtn states."
Cows, corn, and wheat don't bow to Washington DC. They keep growing if the sun and rain is sufficient.
The rest of us that work for people that use capital - we're screwed and it isn't getting better any time soon.
So how does it feel being raped and and robbed by ObAxelRham, Harry Pelosi, and the Democrats?
BTW - even if we get total GOP control in 2013, it doesn't mean we'll get tax cuts and balanced budgets. The American people are so traumatized by the Bush years that we won't get a meaningful tax cut for another generation.
It's obviously just racism.
Alex- Laffer Curve notwithstanding, the fiscal hole we're in is so deep that we are going to have to raise taxes even with deep spending cuts.
If we are borrowing 40% of the budget, discretionary cuts aren't going to, well, cut it.
BTW - even if we get total GOP control in 2013, it doesn't mean we'll get tax cuts and balanced budgets. The American people are so traumatized by the Bush years that we won't get a meaningful tax cut for another generation.
In 2013, we'll still be paying for all the trillions in emergency spending from 2008, 2009, and 2010. Tax cuts would probably not be appropriate in 2013, unless the economy is still doing really badly. And the same on cutting spending -- we probably don't want to cut government spending if the economy is still doing really badly, unless the government spending is distorting the economy so badly as to prevent recovery.
@ Balfegor
No, "Left" coverage still reaches more people, because the Left has the broadcast networks, which combined still reach tens of millions every day. Fox's highest-rated show, O'Reilly, reaches around 5 million.
overwhelmingly anti-Reagan.
If we are borrowing 40% of the budget, discretionary cuts aren't going to, well, cut it.
Maybe we can finally ditch HUD and DoEd. I'd be willing to pay more in taxes to do it! Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?
Do you think he's worried? He's got another ace in his pocket: He's going to release half a trillion in bribes...er, stimulus funds right before the midterm elections. After that, he's home free.
So Obama is just like Reagan.
He'll be like Reagan if the economy recovers and he is reelected by 49 states.
PatCA - "Do you think he's worried? He's got another ace in his pocket: He's going to release half a trillion in bribes...er, stimulus funds right before the midterm elections. After that, he's home free."
Can we all assume you're not aware of the fact that the initial bailout bill signed by...George W. Bush?
Fri., Oct . 3, 2008:
President Bush signed into law Friday a historic $700 billion bailout of the financial services industry, promising to move swiftly to use his sweeping new authority to unlock frozen credit markets to get the economy moving again.
DUH.
No, "Left" coverage still reaches more people, because the Left has the broadcast networks, which combined still reach tens of millions every day. Fox's highest-rated show, O'Reilly, reaches around 5 million.
Yes, as I said, cable is a small audience. My point was that there's generally balance in the larger media market. Against Left dominance of broadcast networks, for example, talk radio reaches a huge audience, and talk radio is overwhelmingly Right (unless you treat NPR as talk radio). Yes, talk radio doesn't pretend to be news, so it's not really the same, but as far as criticism of political figures getting disseminated, I don't think it matters whether you call it "news" or "commentary."
I think that overall, it tends to balance out at this point, though there may still be a residual advantage for Left media sources, given their decades of dominance.
So Obama is just like Reagan.
Please see comments above. Thank you.
There have been twelve post WW II presidents, so placing 4th is pretty close to the middle of the pack. To me the interesting thing is that Obama's personal popularity remains strong. Given the state of the economy, 49% is not a terrible approval number.
I think Obama's presidency has been just this side of a train wreck this far. He has not been consistently effective in anything he has set out to do. He's probably going to get health care passed, but it is going to be a mess while leaving about 25 million people still uninsured.
But the Blame Bush strategy is still working, partly because there is some truth in it. It won't work too much longer though.
John Lynch said..."He'll be like Reagan if the economy recovers and he is reelected by 49 states."
He'll never get 49 states (too many racists and wing nuts for that to happen), but the economy will recover and he will be reelected.
Where where YOU during the spectacular 2nd term of King George?
This recession has been rolling along for about 23 (National Bureau of Economic Research) months now...so it's rather disingenuous to blame President Obama for not solving the problem in about 10 months.
Then again, many here don't read that much and rely on Beck, Hannity and the fat man for their information.
With the policies BHO is pursuing there is 0% chance of a job-ful recovery by 2012. He's toast.
Watch for a Democrat-sponsored job bill soon. What's another $100 billion or two to keep the White House for another term?
Jeremy must have cut his basket-weaving class again.
"But the Blame Bush strategy is still working, But the Blame Bush strategy is still working, partly because there is some truth in it."
No shit?
Two wars and the worst recession sing the Great Depression plopped in President Obama's lap...and you say it's "partly because there is some truth in it."
Would you say the same if Obama had left Bush holding this bag?
Triangle Man - another so-called stimulus will do nothing to reduce unemployment down to 6% which is what will re-elect Obama. He's toast.
Lynch - If you have an intelligent response, throw it out there.
Playing the suck up to your wing nut friend's card is old news.
Jeremy - are you saying that Bush created the recession?
I can't imagine unemployment reaching 6% in President Obama's first or second term.
This will be a jobless recovery to a great degree because so many huge employers have discovered how to do business without so many employees. (AOL is laying off 33% of their workforce today.)
In most cases, the best way to lower business costs is to reduce pay or lay off personnel, and many companies, because of technology, outsourcing and pure reduction in production, will never hire many people back.
In a manner of months, many who scream to high heaven about "government" intervention in their lives (tea baggers, etc. with no jobs or insurance) will welcome such "intervention" with open arms.
Would you say the same if Obama had left Bush holding this bag?
One of the ironies is that to those who are not blind cheerleaders for individual politicians, the only difference between Obama's and Bush's economic policies is one of degree: to whit, Bush's were anything but conservative, and Obama's are the same but moreso...
In a manner of months, many who scream to high heaven about "government" intervention in their lives (tea baggers, etc. with no jobs or insurance) will welcome such "intervention" with open arms.
Perhaps "many" (i.e, those without wits and skills) but certainly not "most."
Alex said..."Jeremy - are you saying that Bush created the recession?"
No.
But he was running the show as it went from a booming economy to a recession.
Both sides of the aisle are to blame, for many reasons, but this ridiculous notion that President Obama should have things under control after 10 months is just that; ridiculous.
Let me ask you this: If Clinton or Obama were President over the past 8 years, and left office with Bush taking over...would you be whining about Bush not having things under control after such a short period of time?
*And keep in mind, the "wars" Bush got us into are still costing us about 60 Billion a year...and I bet you think we should stay...right?
How much money and how many lives (ours and theirs) would we have saved by just going after Bin Laden and leaving Saddam right where he was?
"One of the ironies is that to those who are not blind cheerleaders for individual politicians, the only difference between Obama's and Bush's economic policies is one of degree: to whit, Bush's were anything but conservative, and Obama's are the same but moreso..."
Bush cut taxes and didn't actively try to destroy the economy. Obama is trying to raise the price of healthcare and double the price of energy and raise taxes in the middle of the worst recession in 70 years.
Note to liberals. 2008 was not 1932. It was 1929. And Obama is not FDR. He is Hoover. It wasn't fair that Hoover was left holding the bag for Coolidge just like Obama is left holding the bag for Bush. Hey sometimes life is like that. I am sure baby Jesus will have a nice life as an ex President come 2013.
rocketeer67 "Perhaps "many" (i.e, those without wits and skills) but certainly not "most."
Did I say "most?"
And are you saying that ONLY those "without wits and skills" are currently unemployed, losing their homes or facing severe problems?
That's the old "pull yourself up by your bootstrap" story...which is only appropriate if one has boots.
Right now many Americans are in a postion they never thought they would ever be in, and to dismiss those who now or will find themselves reliant upon "government" as "without wits and skills" is ignorant.
John - You're full of shit...as usual.
Your points are exactly what anyone would hear from Glenn Beck or any of the right wing talking heads on TV and via radio.
President Obama is NOT trying to "raise the price of healthcare and double the price of energy and raise taxes in the middle of the worst recession in 70 years."
He's cut taxes on anyone making less than $250,000, feels millions of Americans need some kind of health care and as for energy, you better believe we need energy research and development.
I'll bet you right now, that within 5 years a vast majority of cars sold in this country will be electric...and you know why?
Because that's the only way the industry will survve and the only way we can wean ourselves off fossil fuels.
You need to read more and blather on less.
Bush cut taxes and didn't actively try to destroy the economy.
True enough. He did however massively increase the scope and size of government on the domsetic side as well, which more than offsets non-permanent tax cuts and a relatively benign neglect of the economy. And on the issues that he could have been massively right on - particularly in increasing oversight of Fannie & Freddie and tightening up secondary market regulations - he rolled over when he met the first resistance from Democrats. Ergo my assertion that he was far from conservative economically.
Reagan has the power to enrage from beyond the grave. That's a great president.
Both sides of the aisle are to blame, for many reasons, but this ridiculous notion that President Obama should have things under control after 10 months is just that; ridiculous.
Obama's really enabled a lot of that criticism, though, most obviously by selling the stimulus with all those charts showing how bad the recession would be without the stimulus, and how much better it would be with the stimulus. He can't really complain that people are now raking him over the coals because actual economic performance has been significantly worse than his people claimed it would be without the stimulus.
True, it's not entirely fair to blame Obama for that. It's not like he would know any better. He's not an economist. He's not even good with numbers. But those cockamamie claims he made during the stimulus debate at the beginning of the year, together with the ongoing comitragic effort to identify and count specific jobs "created or saved" by the stimulus, are part of the reason he's getting in trouble for not having the economy under control. He promised he would.
Sure it was a dumb promise, of the kind politicians always make. Bush II made general promises like that too, to support the tax cut at the beginning of his term. But Obama's junk-science reliance on specific numbers, specific statistics, specific model projections, and so on is, I think, unprecedented. Especially coming off an economic mini-apocalypse that lots of people blame -- not entirely without reason -- on the failure of exactly that kind of economic modelling, and the false sense of security it gave the people in financial industry about their ability to fine-tune hedging and leveraging of their apparent risks.
And on the issues that he could have been massively right on - particularly in increasing oversight of Fannie & Freddie and tightening up secondary market regulations - he rolled over when he met the first resistance from Democrats.
Look, even with increased oversight, what was Bush II going to do? Tell them to stop guaranteeing loans to poor people and minorities? Really? "More oversight" or "more regulation" doesn't solve problems in and of themselves -- you have to have a reasonable expectation that the regulation/oversight is actually going to be able and incentivised to catch and correct the kinds of errors you're trying to fix. Do we really have confidence that either is the case?
Did I say "most?"
No, you didn't, which was my point. You will need it to be "most" for your political vision to come to fruition. Good luck with that.
And are you saying that ONLY those "without wits and skills" are currently unemployed, losing their homes or facing severe problems?
No, I am not. I am responding to your statement that "[i]n a manner of months, many who scream to high heaven about 'government intervention' in their lives (tea baggers, etc. with no jobs or insurance) will welcome such 'intervention' with open arms."
Plenty of people with wits and skills are facing difficulties right now. I'm saying only those without would need or expect "government intervention" to address those difficulties - and I damn well mean it.
Look, even with increased oversight, what was Bush II going to do? Tell them to stop guaranteeing loans to poor people and minorities? Really?
No. He could have told them to stop purchasing mortageses underwritten using food stamps as income. He could have told them that under no circumstances were they to buy mortgages with backend ratios. that exceeded 45. He could have forced them to stop buying if defaults exceeded 3%. I can go on like this for hours. But he didn't, because he was afraid that he would be called racist and elitist, even though that wouldn't have been true and even though thta was the fiscally correct thing to do.
I dont put much stock into approval numbers--esp with three years to go before the next presidential election. And I do hope the economy turns around and 3even though presidents have little impact on the economy I would be willing to credit Mr. Obama.
The damage from these numbers will, I suspect, be on congressional democrats during the mid terms--Mr Obama hasnt demonstrated any ability to support local pols. See for example NJ and VA
The republicans on the other hand can tie the local congresscritters to Obama who is clearly declining in popularity.
rocketeer said:
"He could have told them that under no circumstances were they to buy mortgages with backend ratios. that exceeded 45. He could have forced them to stop buying if defaults exceeded 3%. I can go on like this for hours. But he didn't, because he was afraid that he would be called racist and elitist, even though that wouldn't have been true and even though thta was the fiscally correct thing to do."
Finally someone we can agree caused the failure of reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, by declaring Bush hated black people: Kanye West!
"I'll bet you right now, that within 5 years a vast majority of cars sold in this country will be electric...and you know why?
Because that's the only way the industry will survve and the only way we can wean ourselves off fossil fuels."
where is that electricity going to come from, genius?
There are a lot of ways to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. Nuclear for one. More investment in algae bio diesel for another.
The current admin hasn't taken even the most baby steps to support either.
"Tell them to stop guaranteeing loans to poor people and minorities?"
Anybody who thinks the real estate and economic meltdown is based in all of these "poor" and Minority" people getting loans hasn't read enough.
The meltdown was certainly effected by many of the loans that should have never been granted, but the hedge funds who packaged and resold mortages and securities, without the slightest idea of their real worth are the real culprits. (And they still don't know.)
Blaming people who shouldn't have gotten loans is just an easy way to find blame.
Do you also believe the continuing problems with the big banks and investment houses is still the blame of the poor and the minorities?
Get real.
Reagan and Clinton both went on to re-election, and Reagan is widely considered one of the best Presidents of the 20th Century.
So...it tells me that all the folks calling Obama a failed President so soon are full of shit. Of course Obama suffers in the polls as he deals with the massive mess left on his plate by others. How well he's dealing with that mess is still too soon to tell.
Finally someone we can agree caused the failure of reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, by declaring Bush hated black people: Kanye West!
Heh. But no. I still blame Bush.
jeff - Why not invest your nest egg in bio fuels and forget about electric cars.
GFL.
And why not take some time to actually do some research into things before posting such drivel.
If we could wean ourselves off fossil fuels...we would have done so long ago.
How well he's dealing with that mess is still too soon to tell.
No, it's not. We've seen these policies before. They don't work, and in fact are counterproductive. The difference? This time he's turned it up to 11.
"And why not take some time to actually do some research into things before posting such drivel.
If we could wean ourselves off fossil fuels...we would have done so long ago."
Because, dumbass, it's still far cheaper to burn oil. Which is why we dont have electric cars all over the place. At some point that price will tip. And the research in bio diesel and nuke plants will take off. But you enjoy your 40 mile range golf cart powered by you house current generated by coal.
rocketeer said:
"No, it's not. We've seen these policies before. They don't work, and in fact are counterproductive. The difference? This time he's turned it up to 11."
Another villian of the economic recovery --- Spinal tap. Rob Reiner must be part of the conspiracy.
jeff - "But you enjoy your 40 mile range golf cart powered by you house current generated by coal."
You just don't get this new electric car technology thing do you?
I just read a review today of a new one coming from Nissan: 100 mile range, plugs right into a wall socket, goes 90 miles an hour and runs like a dream.
There are at least ten new models that will rival your gas or bio fuel guzzler for performance, durability and cost.
Check them out when you come out of the cave.
Only two factors have kept Obama's numbers up above 50 percent for this long, first is the liberally skewed polling deliberately undercounting republicans and conservatives in polling and overcounting democrats; second is fear of accusations of racism by the polled not wanting to verbally opine that they dislike the first black President. One only has to look at issue after issue where, despite the skewed polling samples that Obama's policies don't get above the mid-40s. People are displacing their job disapproval numbers with respect to Obama, by being honest with respect to his policies but white lying with respect to feelings on his job approval.
@Balfegor
Talk radio doesn't have that large an audience either- Limbaugh has about 4 million listeners per day, which is about the same as Stewart + Colbert, and less than Katie Couric.
Even if you put both Fox News and talk radio on one side, and MSM (i.e. pretty much everything else) on the other, I think the latter probably still reaches significantly more people. I base thsi on part on the fact that Fox and Rush are in the position of defensively reacting to what is in the MSM, far more than the other way around.
Darn it, I think the proven reserves of rage in this thread have peaked.
I'm afraid that the rage production of this thread is now in terminal decline.
Those of us who depend on imported rage must either find alternative rage sources or must reduce our rage consumption.
"Light, sweet rage" has been progressively replaced with dirty, high-sulfur West Texas Intermediate rage that's only good for a mild increase in blood pressure.
There are rumors of untapped oceans of rage in the southern hemisphere and beneath Nebraska, but I say that we must not depend on the notion that there is always more rage to be found. Globalization and the internet have not just increased the available supply of rage, but demand for it as well. The commodification of the global rage trade has lowered the quality of rage, not improved it. We are all worse off than we were when rage was a highly refined vocation rather than the dumbed-down pathetic product of today.
We must change our behavior. Conservation of rage must be our priority, not pie in the sky complacency. Rage is finite, and we should accept the reality of our predicament. The ability of rage to affect us is lower than ever. Something must be done.
John Lynch said:
"We must change our behavior. Conservation of rage must be our priority, not pie in the sky complacency. Rage is finite, and we should accept the reality of our predicament. The ability of rage to affect us is lower than ever. Something must be done."
I've heard there is plenty of rage directed at Sarah Palin from Alaska, particularly from liberals. We need to send expeditions to Alaska to locate the source of this rage, and bring it to the continental U.S. by pipeline. I know, this will take several years, and I've heard the arguments that it's only a small fraction of the total U.S. DRR (domestic rage requirement). But still, we should tap domestic sources of rage, and DRILL BABY DRILL!
Otherwise, we are stuck importing foreign sources of rage from the Middle East. The history on that is not good.
Normally I don't believe polls because they are liberal and biased but this one I definitely support.
thank you and good day fellow republicans.
>>>>
Well this is the thing, even notoriously left wing polls are showing him below 50% now. That's impressive!
"I'll bet you right now, that within 5 years a vast majority of cars sold in this country will be electric...and you know why?"
Jeremy--For once, you actually wrote something to which I will respond. I will bet you $10,000 right now, today, that there won't be a majority of electric cars sold in this country in 5 years, much less your "vast" majority. Just to be clear, I'm saying number of cars actually sold, not number of cars offered for sale. I'm not kidding. I'll put up my $10K, and you put up your $10K. We can work it out where it can be held by a third party of mutual agreement. I'm a bit of a wagerer, and this will be the easiest $10K I ever made.
So--put up, or shut up.
"Can we all assume you're not aware of the fact that the initial bailout bill signed by...George W. Bush?"
Jeremy can we all assume you are unaware that many conservatives were against that bailout?
"first is the liberally skewed polling deliberately undercounting republicans and conservatives in polling and overcounting democrats"
Right.
All of the organizations that have been doing polling for decades...are cheating.
Duh.
Dbrooks - New cars.
And we both know you don't have anywhere near $10,000 so what would be the point?
Fine. New cars. I think we both know who has neither $10K nor the ..."convictions" to back up their claims. Are you in, or out?
Donal - "Jeremy can we all assume you are unaware that many conservatives were against that bailout?"
That's all well and good, but it has nothing to do with what I responded to.
The Bush administration ran the show during the very biggest government expansion in our nation's history, blew a surplus, got us knee-deep into two wars that continue to cost us about 60 billion a year, was in charge as we entered and became mired in the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression...and you can blather on about how many conservatives weren't in his corner all you want, but the facts are the facts.
Blaming President Obama for not cleaning things up over a period of about 10 months is just right wing bullshit.
Dbrooks - You actually think I would trust some crazy wing nut that voted for George W. Bush twice...to pay up?
That'll be the day.
Based on the insanity I see here on a regular basis, I don't trust 90% of the people here to even be Americans.
The prominent view held by most here is that they hope and pray President Obama fails.
Period.
Whether it's based in politics, race or just plain stupidity, it's unAmerican and rather embarrassing, especially considering the hard road ahead for many Americans.
I find it disgusting.
We can let Meade hold the funds. I don't even know the man, and I trust him.
Actually, I have a better idea. We can put the $20K in 5-year fixed annuity earning around 2.85-2.9%. That way, I'll win your $10K plus the interest earned for 5 years on the whole amount. Again, are you in, or out?
Just to be sure you understand--I am not joking. I am offering to accept your stated wager. We can work out the details in a manner you can find acceptable. I like the fixed annuity idea, but we can find another vehicle(no pun intended), if you are truly a man of your so-often-stated convictions. In, or out?
Brooks - Right.
I'm going to send a chunk of money to the Queen's husband and have him hold it for five years...because YOU trust him.
For someone who has so much money lying around, you sure don't have much of a profile posted.
Why is that?
Why can't you tell us who you and in what industry you're such a success?
As for the "bet," I don't remember throwing out any dollar amounts, but am I to assume that whenever you say you bet something will or will not happen, you immediately jump in with a figure of $10,000 or so? You never use the term in a rhetorical sense during a conversation, discussion or debate?
You're acting like a little kid who wants to make himself look important by suggesting something that is ridiculous at best.
Tell us who you are and why anyone would believe you have any kind of money or income...
"Wing nut tea baggers lose their grip on what little reality they had left in the tank"
Unhappy fans of Sarah Palin went rogue on the Alaska Republican during her book tour stop in Noblesville, Indiana on Thursday.
The local Borders outlet had handed out 1,000 wristbands to book purchasers; the wristbands were supposed to procure fans Palin's signature on their hardback copies of "Going Rogue." But several dozen people who had been promised signatures were turned away empty-handed after waiting hours in poor weather, a local news outlet, the Indy Channel, reported.
"We gave up our entire workday, stayed in the cold, my kids were crying," one man was quoted saying. "They went home with my wife. She was out here in the freezing cold all day. I feel like I don't want to support Sarah."
Another woman told Indy Channel, "We bought two books from Borders to have our receipt and our wristband to get it signed tonight. My books are going back to Borders tomorrow."
The angry crowd turned on Palin as she returned to her "Going Rogue" tour bus. Video below shows people booing and shouting at the bus, and shouting "Sign our books Sarah!" as the engine revved up and Palin departed.
Jeremy you responded to a post that equated Obama's stimulus bill with a bribe to the electorate by saying that Bush signed the first one. I merely pointed out that most conservatives opposed Bush on that specific issue.
I don't understand what everything else that happened in the Bush years has to do with that specific point.
I'll take that to be an "out." Just as I presumed. As I stated, we could work this out in a manner you would find acceptable, but I don't think that is the problem. I think your a little nitwit sitting somewhere in his parents' basement. I gave you a legitimate opportunity to back up your words with a substantive commitment, but, apparently, you are declining. I will pay even less attention to you going forward than I have to this point.
Really Jermey so everyone who thinks that Obama's policies would be a disaster for this country and should fail is un-American?
So according to you to be an American you have to agree with all of a President's policies and hope they succeed? By that logic either you were a big Bush supporter until 2009 or you were un-American. Which is it?
When you guys win the White House again remind me that polls matter.
Till then shut up....
So two of the other three won re-election and this comparison gets tagged "Obama's in trouble".
The Althouse blog's capacity for empiric observation is in trouble.
With comment number 102 the thread should end.
It should have never begun.
It must be hard being an Obama-hater. Life in the Land of Make Believe has its limits.
And three out of four of those guys were reelected. Scary.
wv: twinge. What I just felt.
I know I'm wasting my time, but I'm reconsidering this whole thing, Jeremy. I was just doing some math, and, if one were to deposit $20K in a 5-year annuity at 2.6%(which is apparently a more accurate current rate), the value would be $22,738.75, or a whopping 127.3876% return on a $10K investment. Try finding that in today's market.
So, I am going to make another offer. If $10K is too much, we can make it $5K--the return indicated above would be the same. Let me put this way--if we can find a way to invest the money wherein you are comfortable, would you back up your offered wager with $10K or $5K. It's not a lot of money, but it's not insignificant. I want this to be painful when you lose. Again, I am serious about this. I don't want to know you, I don't want to talk to you, frankly-I don't want to have anything to do with you. I want the winner to be able to pick up his money after 5 years with no hassle, and no questions asked.
I have a little bit of money that I am looking to park somewhere right now. If I could cause you some discomfort in the deal, that would be great. I think a lot of what you post around here is claptrap. Now, there are people on both sides of the aisle that are full of hot air. My personal opinion is more of it comes from the Left than from the Right. I think your comments here diminish this site, and I come here less frequently because of you and others like you who seem hellbent to disrupt sober discussion. I am making a serious offer. You may surprise me, and accept. At that point, I will be happy because I just made one hell of a sweet 5-year investment. OTOH, I think you will obfuscate, try to shift the conversation elsewhere, call me names, etc., mainly because like a lot of people you only care about winning the moment. You don't really believe half of the crap you spit out, or you don't really give it enough thought to consider the future implications. This is an opportunity for you to display that you really believe at least one of the inane claims you have made here.
So, once again, if we could work this out in a way with which you are comfortable, are you in, or out?
If Obama is "in trouble" based on this poll, then what in heaven's name was George W. Bush all those years when his approval ratings were about half this amount?
Doing a heck of a job, eh Larry?
I'd like some of that Jeremy bet action too. But I see that has moved on: money talks, Jeremy walks.
As for who to trust, Jer: there's this legal construct which I believe Annie could explain to you. Or just google "escrow."
My condo porters are the equivalent of the Gallup poll for me. They were to a man and woman 100% Obama last year. Today, the sentiments expressed by one fellow reflect their collective attitude.
Me: "The latest headline [didn't mention I read it on Drudge] is that Obama has lost a huge amount of weight."
Porter: "Must be tough losing weight when doing NOTHING."
Cheers,
Victoria
Dude, Jeremy doesn't have a job. If he does, it's so menial that he'll never mention it.
What's he gonna do to make a bet, take out another student loan?
Don't take away his future.
Like I said, what matters is not what people say, but what they do.
Jeremy only presents his views to a hostile audience so he has a ready excuse when he's rejected. On a friendly blog he'd be just another whitebread nobody with nothing to distinguish him from anyone else. Another snot who equates left wing politics with intelligence. Man, who else is tired of that? News flash: real intelligent and talented people tend to be nice. It's the insecure ones who know they're hacks that are nasty.
There's absolutely nothing original in Jeremy's oeuvre that you couldn't get anywhere else. He's like a random liberal meme generator, with a weighted average for "George W. Bush." There's no personality underneath the sneering liberal veneer. No sense of humor, no spark of wit. It's only unique here because Althouse is a medium sized center-right blog. Fat pimply fish, small pond.
He's a kid. It's obvious. No girlfriend, no job, no prospects, and endless rage. That's why this little drama plays itself out over and over, in thread after thread. It's not trolling. It's an outlet.
Trolls try to get maximum response with minimal effort. This guy spends far more effort than necessary. That means he believes what he's saying, and really wants to tell us. Has to. Can't stop himself. Can't control the raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaage. Got to be right! Have to respond to every single post! Take a fucking SSRI or go count the cracks in the ceiling.
I got several minutes of rage time out of one sentence. That is trolling, gentle reader. Jeremy is just a minor league lib who thinks he's brave for taking his ideas to people who reject him. He doesn't have the talent to write a blog, so he imitates the sneering style in a place where he'll be noticed. Then he's not getting rejected for being a hack, but because his audience is beneath him. Yeah, that'll impress your friends, Jeremy. Both of them.
I bet the coffee house chicks won't give him the time of day. Too bad, because if they did his spoor wouldn't be here every night, next to the pile of socks in the corner that he's impregnated.
Just feel sorry for him and move on. Or, just move the fuck on. If you must, write ONE flame at Jeremy and then ignore him forever. Here's mine. Now, I will never read anything by him again. I urge you to do the same. Stop letting him fill up this blog with his shit. Sorry, but I'm fucking tired of this yahoo.
Make him write something people want to read.
Oh, I stopped reading anything by Gene Olson - I mean, Jeremy - a long time ago.
He's the equivalent of radio static.
The fourth fastest drop among post-WWII presidents.
That's fourth worst out of ELEVEN!
I hate statistics like that. Back in the Bush 43 administration, the newscasters would say things like "That's the biggest drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average since May 15, 2005." Like it had been a really long time. Only it was June 22, 2006. (I'm just making the numbers and dates up for illustrative purposes.)
So that would put him in the middle third? And if we only consider those since modern polling were in place, that would make it the top half! Not bad!
The 49% who approve are probably the same 49% of the adult population that don't pay federal income taxes. To them, it's all FREE!!!
I think only taxpayers should be able to vote.
So easy to vote yourself benefits based on raiding someone else's wallet.
Parasites Of The World Unite!!!
Jeremy: The prominent view held by most here is that they hope and pray President Obama fails.
Yeah. And one of their fave bloggers, Michelle Malkin, started penning her worthless book about how corrupt Obama is before Obama had even been sworn in yet.
Whether it's based in politics, race or just plain stupidity, it's unAmerican and rather embarrassing, especially considering the hard road ahead for many Americans.
I don't know how many of these commenters are racists. I think it's more that they're just hardcore partisans. But I was shocked to see one of Althouse's favorite commenters, Palladian, calling Michelle Goldberg a "New York Jew" in the thread under the Bloggingheads episode. And then other commenters were praising Palladian for being such a good writer, and how well he turns a phrase. He's a bigot who posted that Michelle Goldberg is a "New York Jew"!
Anyway, I agree with you that most of the commenters here hope bad things happen to America so they can tee off on Obama over it.
Alex- Laffer Curve notwithstanding, the fiscal hole we're in is so deep that we are going to have to raise taxes even with deep spending cuts.
Except that if the Democrats enact all the tax increases that they have planned (including the expiration of the Bush (43) tax cuts, as well as a lot of things that are tax increases but are being called other things), it is likely that we will find ourselves in the part of the Laffer Curve where increased tax rates do not translate into increased tax revenues, and that cutting rates would bring in more money than increasing tax rates.
Jeremy,
The answer to the wagering problem is called escrow. You put the money in escrow with, for example, a bank. You set up the escrow agreement to pay off one or the other of you based on a determinable event at a specific point in time. Thus, you could write the escrow agreement to pay one party if sales of electric vehicles are over a certain percentage of all cars sold in one specific year, and pay the other party if not. The party who held the escrow would be liable if it paid off incorrectly, and therefore can be relied upon to do it right (if you pick, for example, a decent sized bank).
I don't work in that area of the law, so I don't know if there would be a gaming problem with such an arrangement in many states, but if there is, you could always try it here in Nevada. I am pretty sure that my firm has the attorneys (including gaming attorneys) who could make it work legally. (Actually, my guess is that it would be treated more like betting in poker, which is mostly legal, than real gaming, which has much more limited legality throughout the country).
Jeremy: The prominent view held by most here is that they hope and pray President Obama fails.
Keep in mind that most of those (including Rush) who have said this specifically did not mean this personally, but rather, that President Obama failed in implementing his totally disastrous policy proposals. I am sure that if he proposed cutting taxes, they would be behind him there. I sure would be.
But it is easy to hope that he fails when he has proposed: a huge "stimulus" package that mostly went to pay off political constituencies; a huge appropriations bill with some 8,000 earmarks; Chicago style politics; Chicago style law in the most corrupt DoJ in the last 60 years; ObamaCare; Tax and Bribe (aka Cap and Trade); trying KSM in federal court in NYC; moving the Club Gitmo detainees to the U.S. (likely MI right now); cozening up to our enemies and betraying our allies; etc.
Yes, I too hope that he fails, and fails miserably. It isn't personal, and I don't hate the guy, or anything like that. I believe that he is naive, misinformed, and grossly underinformed. It is his actions and policies that I hope fail, not the man personally. But if the later happens, because the former does, then fine. That isn't my problem - I wasn't the one who ran for President totally lacking in relevant experience.
Post a Comment