A New York Times/CBS News poll shows that President Obama’s approval ratings are similar to those of President George W. Bush in 2006 when Democrats swept both houses of Congress in the midterm elections.I'm thinking that the NYT loathes the GOP so much — the GOP is "deeply unpopular" at the NYT — that even when the poll numbers show the unpopularity of the Democratic Party, it feels compelled to say that the GOP is deeply unpopular, even though saying that raises the inference that the Democratic Party must be really unpopular to be more unpopular than the deeply unpopular GOP. And yet there's still some hope that the unpopularity of the Democratic Party is, perhaps, not deep.
A deeply unpopular Republican Party is nonetheless gaining strength heading into the midterms, as the American public’s frustration with Mr. Obama has manifested itself in low ratings for his handling of foreign policy and terrorism.
Maybe the unpopularity of the Democratic Party is a transitory surface phenomenon, like some very itchy rash, while the unpopularity of the Republicans is more like arthritis, bad, but this rampant rash is driving us crazy, so if you ask us right now what's bothering us, it's that damned rash, but the rash will clear up and the arthritis will never go away.
पोस्ट्स
४२ टिप्पण्या:
The problem with job approval numbers: Do you disapprove because the officeholder is doing too much or doing too little? The second does not translate into deep unpopularity.
But it is true that the Republican Party is deeply unpopular in big urban areas like New York City. To paraphrase Lincoln, you can be deeply unpopular with some of the people all of the time.
At the same time, if the Democrats keep the U.S. Senate, it will only be because of two or three Senators who can't actually bring themselves to call themselves Democrats.
Your deepish deepity is so deepsome, it's deeper than than the deepliest deepness of Deepardieu's deep vodka supply.
The unpopularity of the Democratic Party is like an autoimmune disease. Modern progressives always favor the profane over the profound, and dysfunctional behaviors over the functional. The body politic is trying to rid itself of the inflammation, but can't bear even one moment of pain to be rid of it.
It's hard to be the party of Hope and Change when the only change while you were in charge has been an overcomplicated and broken web site.
They must be deeply puzzled at the Times. They've spent decades making the Republicans unpopular and the Democrats popular.
"AMERICA! YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO US!"
Maybe that "deep unpopularity" of the Republicans is hidden below the surface, like all that missing global warming deep in the oceans?
Like Puff the Magic Dragon.
...but this rampant rash is driving us crazy, so if you ask us right now what's bothering us, it's that damned rash...
"This itching is driving me crazy!"
"deeply unpopular GOP" is a macro on all NYT computers.
The Republican 'arthritis' is the result of holding blacks down at all times -- it takes a toll on the body...
..and don't ask me what it does to the Republicans' spine: the Republicans are so stooped over they can see up close where they pissed themselves...
It is turtles all the way down...
If Republicans are like arthritis (which works for me), that would make Democrats like the plague.
The mediaswine and the Soros machine have severely damaged the Republican brand, the Tea Party brand and the conservative brand. They are now starting on the Libertarians.
Despite the current polls, it is unlikely that the Republicans will recover. If they do, absent a miracle, it will only last until the 2016 presidential election.
The "deeply unpopular" reference is just the NYT keeping the ball rolling in a country where blather trumps reality.
To be reductive: People aren't happy about the direction of the country. There are currently more Democrats in power than Republicans and therefore the Dems are the ones who are held accountable more often. While this of course is good for Republican candidates in November, I think it's a mistake to assume that suddenly a ton of new people are coming over to the GOP.
The NYT, being the hugely bias left wing rag that it is, is just trying to find any kind of bright spot for themselves and their readers with "At least they dislike the other guys!".
But what's really going on is a deep level of cynicism towards Washington from the American voting public, which I feel is ultimately a good thing. I think citizens need to be more cynical, more cautious, not so quick to buy whatever snake oil politicians sell. Simplistic naive idealism is what got us Obama.
It is in the style guide, page 176 I believe...
a) Whenever possible, do not mention a Democrat politician in a negative way.
b) If (a) is not available, miss-identify the politician as a Republican.
c) If (b) is not available, mention when / how Republicans are worst. If possible include more Republicans than Democrats and/or worst behavior from Republicans than Democrats.
d) If (c) is not available, use some generic derogatory statements about Republicans and said statements must evoke more negative feelings about Republicans than whatever is being discussed / presented about Democrats.
e) If confused, see copy editor for assistance.
White people, keep convincing yourselves that the Republicans will be more popular any day now: like all of white thinking, if you believe it then it MUST be true, despite all evidence to the contrary...
It is turtles all the way down...
In accordance with my simple mind (no depth possible) I'm going with the simplest explanation: The NYT feels an unqualified hatred for Republicans and never misses a chance to take a cheap shot.
Weaving a tale is hard work. The good one is that a wave of Democrat voters is hidden in the deep oceans, but will surface like godzilla on election day.
You cannot prove it wrong because polls don't reach that depth.
The last time a President had these numbers, the Dems swept both houses, inferring the Dems are poised to sweep both house now.
The Republicans are gaining strength, inferring they are currently behind.
Downside for that spin is Dem LIV may feel no need to vote as they are "leading".
Republicans are to arthritis, what Democrats are to a flesh eating disease, which can be mistaken for a rash.
I wouldn't use the NY Times to wrap fish and I don't follow links there.
“What people want, mainly, is to be told by some plausible authority that what they are already doing is right. I don't know know of a quicker way to become unpopular than to disagree.”
― John Brunner
Bobber Fleck said...In accordance with my simple mind (no depth possible) I'm going with the simplest explanation: The NYT feels an unqualified hatred for Republicans and never misses a chance to take a cheap shot.
In fairness to The Times, they don't know any Republicans and have to base their conclusions on what their liberal friends tell them.
The NYT is right, Republicans are deeply unpopular among it's readership. But then again who would expect the readers of the party house organ to be deeply supportive of Republicans? Turtles all the way down.
I'd take their article seriously if the New York Times actually had any credibility. They don't so I won't.
In November the Republicans are going to deeply crush the Democrasts.
The word "deeply" derives from a pair of questions in which the Republicans do worse:
9. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Republicans in Congress are handling their jobs?
19% approve
70% disapprove
11% don't know/didn't answer
10. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Democrats in Congress are handling their jobs?
30% approve
61% disapprove
9% don't know/didn't answer
The Times summarizes this result as "Americans continue to broadly disapprove of congressional Republicans even more than congressional Democrats."
It's an oddly worded question, poorly summarized. The "way" politicians do their job sounds like some kind of question of etiquette in the Palace of Versailles. The "disapproval" is opaque. For Republicans to do so poorly, there must be a great number of people who vote Republican yet disapprove of their "way".
People, I suspect, who think Congressional Republicans act too much like Democrats.
The NYT may lack credibility, but Republicans are not popular.
Among our deeply enlightened electorate the Democrat platform of genital stroking, race hustling, covetousness and free stuff is nearly unbeatable.
Never mind the failed recovery, failed healthcare reform, failed foreign policy, inflated food and gasoline prices, doubled national debt and corruption. Just gimme some more! Deeply shallow.
The NYT is terrified of loss of Democrat control of Congress, and has to pi$$ in the Republican soup in the most deeply cynical way it can.
Not that the Republicans have done much to deserve the change of leadership. They've had six years to articulate a more attractive and less immoral path of governance, but change by default is still the best they can achieve.
But even if they did coalesce around an articulate statement of more conservative governance, media such as NYT would deeply invest itself in garbling and shouting down such statements - as it did very successfully with the Tea Party beginning in 2009.
Another angle to consider is that 30% of Democrats deeply, robotically, support their party. Only 19% of Republicans are so deeply repressed.
Or perhaps the support spills down with the deeply felt need by Democrats to support the President.
If you look at questions 9 and 10 since 2010, the Republicans are always around 20% approval and the Democrats are always around 30%.
What we need for comparison is numbers from 2000 to 2010.
In other words, the Democrats may be acutely unpopular, but the Republicans are chronically unpopular.
At least that's how the NYT sees it.
The GOP will gain a number of seats this year, but they would be wise not to rest on their laurels. Their gains will be because the public is exhausted and angry with Obama and the Democrats after six years of watching them govern or attempt to do so. It's not an attraction to Republican politicians and policies that is driving this, even though the GOP will benefit from this anger in this cycle.
If the GOP leaders are smart, they'll start planning for the next two or three cycles, not just to try and win the White House in 2016 but to expand their base with programs that will attract new voters in areas that they want to become more competitive (suburbs and cities). Narrow, rare wins over the Democrats won't be enough to get any agenda enacted.
Everybody hates lawyers, most people like their lawyer. Everybody hates politicians, most people like their politician.
Sure, the Republican Party would take a drubbing if it were on the ballot, but it is not. Individual Republicans are.
There's a posts making the rounds (Google it) comparing the number of media reports on Obama's popularity numbers, 6, I think, versus George Bush's, something well over 100.
Reporting on Obama popularity numbers is deeply unpopular.
And all of the above is the bias that doesn't exist in the media. There are plenty of ways to reinforce the negative and poison the well or, conversely, to ignore or redirect (Squirrel!) anything bad on your side without coming out and saying something blatantly partisan. You pile that stuff on for 50 years and it's probably going to have some effect. But these days, with the internet and alternative news sources available to push back against this MSM full-court press, maybe the effect is lessened.
Check out this example of snideness in action. Even the seemly positive words drip with condescension. Dinesh D'Souza Is Winning
Ah, fame. It's late July, and D'Souza and I are wrapping up a lunch buffet at an Italian restaurant in the Omni Mandalay Hotel at Las Colinas in Irving, Texas. With us is D'Souza's business partner and frequent travel companion Bruce Schooley, a self-described inventor from Washington state whom D'Souza met on a National Review cruise.
I have to admit, Ann is right on this one. Brilliant analysis of the Grey Lady.
Clayton Hennesey said...Reporting on Obama popularity numbers is deeply unpopular.
Blaze: 124 Reports of Bush's Approval Rating vs 9 for Obama
Newsbusters: MRC Study--TV buries bad news Obamas Polls
GOPUSA: Networks Strangely Silent on Polls About Obama
To those of you over 40 who don't understand how the republican party can be so unpopular with the younger generation, think about this. They never experienced Reagan and Morning in America, the fall of the USSR or the growth of the economy in th e80s. Their only experience with republicans has been losing 2 wars, the economic crash of 2008, and retrograde (in their view) social ideas.
In short as much as they may dislike democrats and Obama, they've never experienced anything positive under republicans either. There's your deep unpopularity.
Shouldn't admit it but as an actual GOP member I feel it too. The GOP is deeply unpopular. For one thing, there are people who were able to get medical insurance for the first time in decades. We don't know how that will turn out, but at the moment these people do recall that the Republicans opposed it, and prevented something that might have been better.
The only thing that will save us is a deeply popular GOP president. :}
"Shouldn't admit it but as an actual GOP member I feel it too. The GOP is deeply unpopular. For one thing, there are people who were able to get medical insurance for the first time in decades. We don't know how that will turn out, but at the moment these people do recall that the Republicans opposed it, and prevented something that might have been better.
The only thing that will save us is a deeply popular GOP president. :}"
That's true--the Democrats have at least appeared to be the party of trying to "do something" about the myriad ills in society (lack of health coverage, job losses, the environment) and though the "something" has often been things that don't help or make the problem worse, the GOP alternative has lately seemed to be total opposition and standstill, which isn't a very positive message for those who may be disillusioned by the Democrats. Sure, someone paying attention could point to various GOP reforms, such as Paul Ryan's attempts to reform entitlements or school choice plans, but among the GOP itself many of these ideas die on the vine so they're not publicizing a big program. It's no wonder a lot of voters simply think the GOP is the "no" party, and if anything will simply not vote when they're pissed with the Democrats.
The GOP is going to have to nominate someone who can present an agenda and be a good enough poltiician to sell it. There's just no one for them to rally around these days, what with George W Bush still being unpopular and Reagan being decades ago.
There's a good opportunity here, during the Obama hangover, but the GOP hasn't taken it yet.
Brando,
And they won't, being too accustomed to obstruction and partisaship. They can't convince anyone they're Americans.
Just everybody's enemy,...
That was Crack, BTW
Is it better to be deeply unpopular or widely unpopular?
Personally, I prefer to be widely reviled.
The Republicans are deeply unpopular but the Democrats are messing up and the fans are getting uneasy.
Here's Obama's latest: "Soldiers, I will never send you back to Iraq - I will send you to the Ebola zone instead." And drives away in a golf cart.
I seriously think we should get away from saying things like, "The New York Times......"
This article was written By MEGAN THEE-BRENAN. Whoever the heck that is.
Saying the New York Times gives her cover for her abuse of the English language.
Someone ought to ask her, "If you describe the Republicans as Deeply Unpopular, what words are left to describe the more unpopular Democrats?"
It's fools all the way down.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा