Wednesday, July 8

32% strongly approve


Six months in just 32% voters 'strongly approve' of Obama?
(hell, Bush only went that low after eight years)
TARP2 opposed by whopping 60% of Americans.
48%
disapprove of Obama.
Consumer confidence has fallen to lowest level in two months.
56% say no to more taxes to combat the myth called global warming.
52% say keeping energy costs low more important than going green.
The GOP leads on the generic ballot.

19 Comments:

Blogger Chris said...

"hell, Bush only went that low after eight years"

Kent, you know that's a lie. Total lie. A 32% strongly approve rating is substantially high for anyone. Not all polls measure strongly's and ones that do rarely use the extremes as any sort of polling measurement. Secondly, if you combine Obama's approvals based on this poll, Rasmussen reports he has a 52% approval rating. That means well over half of his support "strongly approves" of the job he's doing. Impressive actually.

Thirdly, Bush's "strongly approves" did not in any way, shape or form hit 32% only after 8 years. I challenge you to find me any sort of proof to back that up. You can't cause it's a total lie. His approval rating (strongly, moderately and flat plainly approve) hit the 30s for the first time in 2005. There is no way his "strongly approves" hit 32% only after 8 years.

Fourthly, and most importantly, if we use Rasmussen's "index rating" for Bush, you'll quickly discover that his approval index was in the negatives for 6 solid years. Sometimes reaching into the -50s. He also left office with a disapproval rating of 70%, the highest for any two-term president ever.

Don't back down Kent, show me where Bush's "strongly approves" hit 32% only after 8 years.

7:28 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

Sure, but 52% is a long way down from the 70% rating BO had just six months ago.

You should know that I wrote this post for you in mind, and you, predictably, took the bait. Sucker.

Bush isn't the subject here, as much as it pains you.

I could care less about the Bush approval ratings, since he's now out of office. (And I have a five year blog archive to prove that I didn't give a crap about Bush's popularity.)

What I care about now is how Obama's approval ratings are crashing. (Since Bush's poll numbers were such a big deal to you and all of the idiot MSM from 2002-2008)

Of course, all the Right-leaning pundits are saying Obama is finished. Notice I'm not saying that.

If this was July, 2010, maybe. But, obviously, the back-loaded stimulus is designed to kick in about this time next year, leading to big so-called 'Democratic' Congressional victories. And Obama has the MSM on his side. It's the only way he was elected anyway.

What a 'great' leader.

Obama cowardly gets a foreign policy 'victory' in Russia. (While making us less safe) Obama was a complete chickenshit on Iran. Obama jams climate change down our throats. (While the rest of the world adopts a Bush-skeptic climate change policy)

Obama=Carter. Yeah, that's judgment to lead, baby.

11:09 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

Glad to see that you admit you are lying. What's troubling is that you don't care that you are lying. You'll do whatever to try and discredit the President of the United States. 6 months ago, that would be treason. Thankfully today it's not.

I know you didn't give a crap about Bush's approval. You said his low numbers meant he was a great leader. But apply the total opposite to Obama. Slipping numbers to him prove that he's the opposite of a great leader. You couldn't be consistent if your life depended on it. You're just as right wing as they come. Don't kid yourself.

1:22 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

Admit I'm lying? I'll admit to you that I've never knowingly lied on my blog. Have I been wrong about stuff? Of course, I'm human. You're wrong too.

Bottom line, you know what they say opinions... It just looks like more people are coming around to my way of thinking right now, that's all.

Obama might turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to the GOP. Stay tuned for 2010 and 2012.

4:05 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

Kent, you knew when you wrote "Bush only went that low after eight years," that it wasn't true. Some how you tried to claim that you used it as bait. So you knowingly wrote it, and yet haven't corrected it.

However, it's not an opinion that you lied and Bush did indeed go that low and much, much lower long before 8 years. It's a proven fact. He never once, not one single time, had a positive approval during his entire second term. No president has had such negative approvals for as long and as deep as Bush. No opinions about it. It really happened.

12:18 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

What I said was -- and you completely took it out of context -- 'You should know that I wrote this post for you in mind, and you, predictably, took the bait. Sucker.'

I mentioned Bush in a post about Obama's poll numbers because I knew you'd respond. It's like waving the color red in front of a bull. With you one needs only to type 'Bush' and you come running.

And then I wrote:

'What I care about now is how Obama's approval ratings are crashing. (Since Bush's poll numbers were such a big deal to you and the MSM from 2002-2008)'

That said, you are correct to correct me. Bush's approval numbers never improved after '05. But still, it took him four years to reach that point. Obama's numbers are already eroding after six months because people don't like his policies.

4:21 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

No I commented because what you said was incorrect, knowingly incorrect which makes it a lie. You said "Bush only went that low after eight years." That's not true. You know it's not true. You knew it when you wrote it yet wrote it any way.

Plus, approval ratings and this silly index you love so much are two totally different things. Like I said in my first comment, if we use the index to measure Bush we see he hit much lower than Obama's. And no it didn't take until 2005.

Nothing is out of context. You said it took 8 years for Bush to reach lower than 32% of strongly approve. That's not true in the least bit. And you know it.

7:48 AM  
Blogger Kent said...

It seems you only comment on posts where I specifically mention Bush. Pure coincidence, I guess.

4:28 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

It has nothing to do with you mentioning Bush. Sometimes I just like to read and leave comments on your blog. However, your whole point in saying false things like you do in this post is to discredit the President of the United States, something that would have been un-American or un-patriotic 6 months ago.

But enough is enough. You've had plenty of time to accept my challenge and prove me wrong. Either show me where Bush's numbers hit 32% strongly favor only after 8 years or admit it's false.

12:18 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

WaPo did the entire Bush approval ratings over eight years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2006/02/02/CU2006020201345.html

Bush went under 50% sometime in April 2005 and never recovered. His approval rating hit the low 30's in June 2006. So it took six years, not eight as I stated previously, for his numbers to fall to where Obama's are now after just six months in office.

By the way, never did I say that it was un-American to cite Bush's poll numbers. That's completely untrue and stupid. I never said that or believed that. It was always about policy with me and you know it.

5:42 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

Kent, I'm really beginning to believe you have no clue what you are talking about ever. Barack Obama's approval rating is not in the low 30s. According to your Rasmussen poll his "strongly approve" is at 32%. His full approval rating is at 52%, according to this poll. That means more than half "strongly approve" of the way Obama is doing his job.

Bush's full approval hit the 30s in 2005. There is no way his "strongly approve" hit 32% only after 8 years. It's totally impossible, logically and mathematically.

What you are trying to do is say Obama's "strongly approve" number is his approval rating. It's not. And then trying to compare Bush's full approval rating to Obama's "strongly approve" rating. Interesting enough is Obama's "strongly approve" are still higher than Bush's entire approval.

You're smarter than that Kent.

9:51 AM  
Blogger Kent said...

You are incorrect. Bush's full approval hit the 30's in 2006, not 2005.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, it's just I look at these polls a little differently than you do.

You're incorrect when you say that Obama's strongly approve numbers are 52%.

Obama's strong approval is 32%.

Merging approve and strongly approve numbers to arrive at an artificial 52% doesn't make sense.

I'm taking the strongly approve number as the primary gauge of Obama's full approval and comparing it with Bush's overall approval ratings according to the WaPo link I cited yesterday.

Bush left office with an overall 33% approval rating, one point higher than Obama's current strong approval number.

10:19 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

Where in the world did I say Obama's "strongly approve" was 52%?? I said his overall approval according to Rasmussen is 52%.

Merging strongly approve with approve doesn't make sense?? You are completely crazy. Combining "strongly approve" with "somewhat approve" and "approve" equal the overall approval rating. That's how Rasmussen gets to 52%. Not all polls ask for a breakdown but some do, like Rasmussen. According to Rasmussen, 32% strongly approve of the job Obama is doing. But 52% overall approve. That 52% is the combination of all approvals. It says it right there in the link you provide.

You can't take Obama's "strongly approve" number as a primary gauge of his overall approval. If you do, then you must take Bush's "strongly approve" as an overall gauge as well. And if you do you'll see that his "strongly approve" didn't only hit 32% after 8 years like you claimed in the original post.

Comparing "strongly approve" to overall approve doesn't make sense and it is entirely inaccurate. Of course that is exactly what you want to do, because it fits your Fantasy World. Bush's overall approval equals Obama's "strongly approve." You're a genius Kent. Two different standards, one comforts your Fantasy World the other you use to discredit the President of the United States. What a genius.

1:56 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

I'm not crazy and I understand how polls work.

My point is that I disagree with the polling methodology that pretends we need two different categories of 'approval.'

If you approve of the job the president is doing why is it necessary to have a strongly approve tab?

Back to my earlier comments, the WaPo link I cited only gave Bush's approval/disaproval #'s in the aggregate. There was no wishy-washy 'strongly approve/strongly disaprove included.

4:57 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

Exactly my point Kent. I said it in my very first comment.

"Not all polls measure strongly's and ones that do rarely use the extremes as any sort of polling measurement."

We don't need two different categories of approval. I totally agree. But you are the one fudging the data. You're saying you don't agree with how Rasmussen conducts the poll but more than happy to run with parts of their data-- parts you try to use to discredit the President of the United States.

Your last comment is the smartest thing you've said in a year. Too bad it means you absolutely disagree with the only polling you ever link to.

6:26 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

Thanks for the compliment, buddy.

I've done spot-on analysis of Obama for the past 15 months, too. Your disagreement with it doesn't make it wrong.

7:56 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

Kent, you really have no idea what you even type. Your "analysis" is dead wrong. You lied. You knew you did it when you wrote it. And now you're finally concluding that a poll that tests extremes such as "strongly approve" isn't necessary. That's not spot on.

7:19 AM  
Blogger Kent said...

I've never lied on this blog. You mistake your disagreement with the things I post with dishonesty. How 'Democratic' of you.

4:31 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

My disagreement is the fact that what you said is not true.

"Bush only went that low after eight years."

You mistake fact with disagreement. It's a fact that what you said is not true. You knew when you wrote it but you wrote it anyway. Your whole point is to try your hardest to discredit the President of the United States.

The fact that what you wrote is false isn't just my opinion. It's a proven fact. Just admit it.

6:46 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Copyright 2004-2013, RightFromLeft.blogspot.com. All Rights Reserved. All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without prior written permission. 0