Obama Approval Poll
By Barry Ritholtz - December 26th, 2008, 3:30PM
“An Obama job approval rating of 79 percent — that’s the sort of rating you see when the public rallies around a leader after a national disaster. To many Americans, the Bush administration was a national disaster.”
- Bill Schneider, CNN’s senior political analyst, on a poll indicating overwhelming approval for Barack Obama.
>
Any dead enders want to challenge this thesis?
>
UPDATE: December 27, 2008
Just found this fascinating tidbit:
Conservative Republicans Still Widely Support Bush (Gallup, Dec 11, 2008)
Why wouldn’t anyone support W? He did an awesome job!
>
Source:
Poll: 79% approve of way Obama is handling transition
Paul Steinhauser
CNN, December 9, 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/09/Obama.poll/
December 26th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Wow they are putting alot of faith in Obama, after all his democratic Congress has a lower approval rating than the Bush administration.
December 26th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
“To many Americans, the Bush administration was a national disaster.”
Ha! Well said and so true. But to be fair we need to add the economic / financial disaster as a major reason for the high rating.
Unfortunately, O has nowhere to go but down.
December 26th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
what exactly has Obama done to get such a high approval….he made sure TARP got approved…we know how that is working out….he appointed Geithner, Mr. Bailout himself,….he supported bailing out insolvent auto companies…the market has dropped over 1k points since election day…
December 26th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I wonder what the other 21% would give for their reason so far…
December 26th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
“Wow they are putting alot of faith in Obama, after all his democratic Congress has a lower approval rating than the Bush administration.”
The Democratic Congress’ low rating is probably because they’re seen as being insufficiently opposed to Bush, and too easily rolled.
December 26th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Ventura2012 Says:
“what exactly has Obama done to get such a high approval….”
Haven’t you seen the pics of him shirtless on the beach in Hawaii? He is a superstar! And everyone (well the mainstream majority anyway – 79%, that’s about right) worship celebrities!
December 26th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Up until early 2008, Bush still enjoyed support among die-hard Republicans. But after Bush renounced capitalism and became a Socialist, he lost much of his base as well. (I myself didn’t become a Bush hater until about 5 months ago).
Obama’s honeymoon isn’t going to last. Right now he’s the “anti-Bush”. But before long, Obama’s going to have to say “no” to someone.
December 26th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
The other 21% listen to Limbaugh, Coulter, watch Bill O’Rielly, Sean Hannity and worship Sarah Palin. Basically the brain dead among us. Bush is a fraud just like the Conservative economic philosophy. Congress is a joke because they were complicit in the scheme.
December 26th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I didn’t vote for Obama but, he is the President. He will get a better start than George Bush did eight years ago. For example, I expect President Obama will find all the “O” keys intact on the Whitehouse computers.
December 26th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Hate to play a race card, but Obama likely gets 95% approval or more among blacks…don’t know if a white candidate can get 95% of whites.
December 26th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
“Wow they are putting alot of faith in Obama, after all his democratic Congress has a lower approval rating than the Bush administration.”
I don’t think its that they are putting a lot of faith in Obama; they are making their statement of how much they hated and how little faith they had in Bush. In just preparing to take over the office, he has demonstrated more positive behavior than Dubya. And it takes a real leader to get Congress to do anything right; it sure wasn’t Bush and we will find out if it is Obama.
December 26th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Fredex Says:
December 26th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I didn’t vote for Obama but, he is the President. He will get a better start than George Bush did eight years ago. For example, I expect President Obama will find all the “O” keys intact on the Whitehouse computers.
Howdy Mr. Dead Ender!!!
I applaud your diligence in ignoring the truth….that is unless you think the GAO is lying.
LOL
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/23/vandals/index.html
Last week it was revealed that a formal review by the General Accounting Office, Congress’ investigative agency, “had found no damage to the offices of the White House’s East or West Wings or EOB” and that Bush’s own representatives had reported “there is no record of damage that may have been deliberately caused by the employees of the Clinton administration.”
December 26th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
@Venture2012: He’s not Bush. That’s all that’s needed right now. The bar will be set higher after the Inauguration and reality sets in that he’s not Superman either.
December 26th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
He’s not Bush. That’s all that’s needed right now. The bar will be set higher after the Inauguration and reality sets in that he’s not Superman either.
Well, he did admit that he is from Krypton, sent here by Jor-El, his father, to save this planet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5SWQJWm6Tg
December 26th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Deanscamaro
“In just preparing to take over the office, he has demonstrated more positive behavior than Dubya.”
If you calling supporting the $700 billion TARP positive behavior and supporting the bailout of insolvent autos positive behavior I guess you will be happy with the Obama administration. Obama is showing that noone can fail under his watch….I suggest Mr. Obama reads the Panic of 1819 by Murray Rothbard to see the benefits of letting the free markets adjust prices accordingly and not continue to manage home and stock prices as Bush, Paulson, Bernanke and th Congress are trying to do. Mr. Obama’s actions have guaranteed we will not have a quick resolution to this situation.
December 26th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
The actual difference between Obama and Bush wasn’t that great until they added in the tally from the Chicago Dead Voters Caucus.
December 26th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Fredex said,
“He will get a better start than George Bush did eight years ago.”
As will we all - Dick Cheney won’t be Vice-President.
December 26th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
“To many Americans, the Bush administration was a national disaster.”
… and a national disgrace
seppuku
December 26th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
After reading of the California Christmas shootings by some guy that could not take rejection (a common problem), I continued to struggle to understand how this happens. Then I read this blog posting and the comments re the W’s on typewriters, Chicago dead voters, comments about black approval, which are either untrue or baseless and I realize that it is a national problem. So you backed the wrong guy. Get over it, it was he that screwed up. It’s no sin to make a mistake but to lie into infinity to try and cover up poor judgement is just plain wrong. Deadenders is putting it nicely.
December 26th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Dead enders? So Barry, you think BECAUSE Bush was terrible this IMPLIES Obama deserves a high approval.
I think that logic is a dead end.
I’m just praying for all the Obama cult worshipers to buy stocks when he’s inaugurated, so I can sell to them.
~~~
BR: Not at all.
Anytime I mention anything about Bush, his defenders come out of the woodwork and carefully explain to me why he is not a bad prez, why its all Clinton’s fault, etc.
I was baiting them.
December 26th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
vic
I don’t see BR implying that all.
Obama’s high approval rating is a reflection on how relieved this nation is to be rid of our incompetent fratboy president who handily continued his lifelong record of driving every enterprise he has ever led straight into the proverbial ditch.
December 26th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Rather than simply report and compare the poll results in an unbiased and objective manner, CNN felt the need to include an inflammatory quote from a partisan hack on its payroll.
Nice piece of journalism.
~~~
BR: Actually, you are the one being partisan.
CNN is reporting about an incoming President with unusually high approval ratings. This follows a President who has the lowest approval rating in history, and has presided over many “disasters” while in office of his own making: economic, military, judicial, as well as his response to natural disasters.
Providing context and explanation is what journalism is supposed to do. That you don’t like says more about your leanings than it does about CNN’s.
December 26th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
While I voted for Bush, I agree that his second term was a disaster. Obama’s high numbers reflect hope that he does better. I’ll reserve judgement until he has actually does something. $700 million plus campaign bought a lot of hope.
December 26th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Like the Onion said, “the economy continues to campaign for Obama”…
December 26th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Obama is being worshipped as a savior and he will bring a return to Camelot. Since our current state of affairs has been brought about due to the incompetence of the current occupant of the White House, and Obama is definitely his opposite in all aspects, we can therefore expect that before Obama’s first term expires, compared to today:
the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan will be greatly improved
the stock market will be substantially up
the TARP and other bailout / stimulus programs will greatly improve the economy
the banking industry will be in much better condition
the housing market will be back to normal
the domestic automobile companies will be in solid financial condition
a new Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve will be one in whom we can have great faith
New Orleans will be functioning as it was pre-Katrina
By the way, how does the level of the subject poll compare to the similar polls taken in 2000, 1992, 1988, 1980, 1976, 1968, 1960, 1952, etc.?
December 26th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the hunkiest world leader of all?
Obama?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/eonline/20081223/en_top_eo/74753
http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b74753_barack_obama_buff.html?sid=rss_topstories&utm_source=eonline&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=rss_topstories
Putin?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070822.wputin0822/BNStory/International
http://www.outlookindia.com/photoessays.asp?secname=International&serial=8&foldername=20080114&filename=FC5international&storyid=1&mode=
or Sarkozy?
http://www.outlookindia.com/photoessays.asp?secname=International&serial=9&foldername=20080114&filename=FC5international&storyid=1&mode=
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-477212/Spot-le-difference-With-flick-airbrush-Nicolas-Sarkozy-says-au-revoir-love-handles.html
and this:
JFK looks great for a guy with Addison’s disease.
Check out #4 – Clinton in his high cholesterol, quarter-pounder days.
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/chi-081223-shirtless-presidents-pg,0,1698584.photogallery
December 26th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Any dead enders want to challenge this thesis?
————————–
We have a long ways to go, and Obama probably more than anyone appreciates that. Despite some of the comments above, he could still stumble in Iraq (regarding the pull out schedule), Afghanistan (regarding the troop buildup), to say nothing of the economy, our financial system, entitlements and the exploding deficit. And as the brouhaha over Rick Warren has shown, Obama may find himself having to navigate dangerous political waters time and again as he confronts many of these issues.
December 26th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
“The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted December 1-2, with 1,096 adult Americans interviewed by telephone.”
I cannot believe that so many suckers trust a tiny (gigantic sampling error) and statistically insignificant non-random telephone poll (who did they call? what area of the country?) that was conducted by an extremely opinionated liberal network consisting mostly of Obama groupies and located in predominately black city Atlanta (for most blacks Obama’s skin color was the reason to vote for Obama).
Do you really believe that an opinion of 1K (0.0003%) of adult “Americans” (how many of them were actually Americans?) out of 305,500K can be extrapolated to how the rest 305400K (99.9997%) of the US population feels about Obama?!?!?
Sorry Barry, but this pole (and CNN) is garbage, and the dead ender is the one who buys Bill Schneider’s scam (Madoff, another liberal democrat, would be proud of Schneider’s scam). I have a Brooklyn bridge to sell to those who believe a word of what Bill Schneider says.
If you thought Chris Matthews gets a thrill up his leg when he thinks about Barack Obama, you aint seen nuttin’ yet, on Christmas Eve, CNN’s Bill Schneider (Obama’s groupie in charge) practically aired a love letter for the president-elect.
Even worse, after gushing ad nauseum about how Obama is “really sweeping people off their feet” — with bogus “statistics” to back up his sick-making adoration, of course!
Nice job, Bill. You’re quite a journalist.
~~~
BR: Mathematicians have long demonstrated 1000 plus as statistical adequate to represent a broader population.
Now, if you want to demonstrate this was non-random, please do so.
Otherwise, your comments will have to stand on their own — and they do you no service.
December 26th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
The fault of Bush’s administration was to give in to the neocons and the transformational doctrine imposed on the armed forces. Runsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney are the guys to blame while Bush was a puppet.
Now, who here thinks Obama is not a puppet too raise your hand… oh boy, 79% of you did.
December 26th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Barry, I had no idea so many of the 21 percenters read your blog!
Amazing. I thought everyone here were more intelligent than that…
December 26th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Lars39 wrote: “While I voted for Bush, I agree that his second term was a disaster. ”
The second term was founded on the rank incompetence of the first term. It’s an error to distinguish the two. It simply took a few years for Bush’s first term policies to blow up in his face.
December 26th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I was a huge fan of Barack, and always considered Bill and Hillary and GW and McCain for what they are. So I really had no hope. There just was no hope among the other choices.
IMHO Americans are desperate for something to believe in or hope for. A rallying cry. JFK Camelot. We shall overcome. WWII was by far the best unifying rallying cry in the last xxx hundred years.
Barack is completely and totally capable of providing the needed leadership. (The great Solon)
Washington, D. C. is completely and totally solvable, by someone that has core values and convictions beyond question. And the moxie to deal with reality. And the data support. And the ability to frame every question as to who benefits. But the corruption has to go. Since when do million dollar government contracts become billion dollar contracts? Ask Ralph.
He could erase fewer than 100 people from the D. C. scene and improve the situation by a factor of 10. (erase means eliminate from their socio-economic control posts).
Does anybody remember the head of the GAO resigning in disgust. Where is he on Barack’s list of cabinet members? OK. So let’s go inside, and get the real dirt, including the inside the Beltline truth about Hillary. How about Reid Hundt, Uncle Billie’s choice for the FCC until he violated the Lincoln bedroom rental rules.
When Barack rolled over on the legislation that granted AT&T immunity and sustained the surveillance rules, after having taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and having promised to filibuster the act, he lost me as a believer. Once again Dr. Faustus sold his soul. And I told him that in his blog.
Unfortunately, more of the same. I am reminded of how many view Lincoln as such an ideal, including Barack, but students of history know how corrupt America was back then. And Abe was blind to it.
So, I guess my assessment is if anybody can juice the situation to prop up stocks, they will. But plan for a major let-down when spin and hope don’t quite get it done.
My smart friends say look for a boost of less than a year, and after that a hopeless collapse.
December 26th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
The country has been completely FUBaRred in the last 8 years, in more than one way: socially, politically, economically, educationally and so on. No Messiah, including Jesus Christ himself, can turn it around in the next 4 years. It will be a miracle if Obama can even halt this sinking Titanic, let alone turn it around. I’m already mentally prepared to say goodbye to my expectations of social security checks when I get to that age, however, guberment is still milking my paycheck to pay for off some lucky bastards in the ponzi scheme.
December 26th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
John:
Being from New Orleans, I don’t think it would be considered a positive if New Orleans was functioning like it was pre-Katrina. Pre-K, it was poor, dysfunctional, and declining. Katrina brought to the attention of the rest of the nation.
December 26th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Kudos, Barry.
Reading the comments to this post has been most enlightening.
December 26th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Bear in mind that, with Obama, it’s not “tax and spend”.
It’s “economic stimulus”.
So it’s all O.K.
December 26th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
“No Messiah, including Jesus Christ himself, can turn it around in the next 4 years”
I agree Gabriel. Maybe that was the idea………but I feel vindicated at this point in NOT having voted for O. (registered Dem-and, no, i didn’t like Hillary)
O is simply rotating in the Dem’s establishment bloodsuckers and corporate vampire enablers.
Again we are left to wonder if the President is either clueless and easily led (like Bush?!?!) or if O is the “clean-up” hitter after W.
O’s mission? Overseeing amerika’s transition from holder of the world’s fiat currency.
December 26th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
John:
e.g. http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/gang_of_gunmen_shoot_toddler_i.html
It was so unexceptional, that it’s at the bottom of the nola.com news listing.
December 26th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Addendum to my post above (evidence in support of what I said):
Why Peggy Joseph voted for Barack Obama?
Because Peggy Joseph (an Obama groupie) thinks that under Barack Obama she will not have to work to pay for her gas, she will not have to work to pay for her mortgage, and who knows what else she will get from hard working taxpayers like you and me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36×8rTb3jI
—
Like Bill Schneider, Bernard Madoff is a liberal Democrat, and as most other liberals he likes to spend other people’s money.
It reads like a who’s who of liberal Democrats: Clinton, Corzine, Dodd, Schumer, Kerry, Markey, Rangel, Bradley, Lautenberg … and yes, even Obama. And what they all have in common is Bernard Madoff and his company of lies. And, a review of campaign contributions at OpenSecrets.org shows that from 2005-2008, Madoff pumped well over $100,000 into the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, a political action committee guided by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.
Madoff’s favorite candidates that he liberally sprinkled with a portion of stolen from other people money:
– Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey
– New York Sen. Hillary Clinton
– Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry
– New York Rep. Carol Maloney
– Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy
– New York Rep. Charles Rangel
– New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine
– New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg
– Former Missouri Sen. Dick Gephardt
– Former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/12/madoff-and-company-spent-nearl.html
December 26th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
I voted for O, the lesser of two evils. Just an observation here: Election day was magic, he looked ethereal on stage just in time to one-up santa, like a harbinger of great change with a sack full of hope. From then till now, he’s proving that our economic problems will be dealt with essentially the same as before, or worse. Is it just me or does a strong stage presence seem woefully lacking when he attempts to speak ‘presidentially’? I see a big let-down on the way for his converts, perhaps two months into his presidency, when everyone realizes that the problem plaguing this country are virtually unfixable, and that the Keynesian rhetoric will work to the detriment of the democratic constituencies. We’re taking a different path to the same destination.
December 26th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Jurgen @ 10:32
Interesting. Perhaps each of these campaign contributions should be deemed a “fraudulent conveyance”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraudulent_conveyance
December 27th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Incidentally, just to show how fleeting admiration can be, according to Gallup shortly after the 9/11 attacks George W. Bush was the man most admired by Americans. 39% of Americans blessed him with this honor - higher than the 32% Obama receives today in the 2008 Gallup survey. But from there it was straight down hill. See:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113572/Obama-Hillary-Clinton-Share-Most-Admired-Billing.aspx
Perhaps a timely caution for some of the high expectations that have been set for Obama . . .
December 27th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Another humorous bailout video.
“12 days of bailouts”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55xJnIqq9ZI
December 27th, 2008 at 12:50 am
The heavy lifting was done by Bush, although he is no conservative. OBama is the beneficiary.
December 27th, 2008 at 2:05 am
Fredex Says: December 26th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
“…I expect President Obama will find all the “O” keys intact on the Whitehouse computers.”
Bill Clinton: IT’S ALIVE! IT’S ALIVE!!
December 27th, 2008 at 2:20 am
“Hate to play a race card, but Obama likely gets 95% approval or more among blacks…don’t know if a white candidate can get 95% of whites.”
You should look up the actual numbers Steve. 95% of “blacks”? Wanna know the total African American population is right now? You make it sound like he won the presidential race on those votes alone…
***********
Is his approval rating too high? Is that wrong? I laugh at these polls…
December 27th, 2008 at 4:56 am
Hey, it’s just a push-poll by CNN. If I was asked “Do you approve of the way Barack Obama is handling the transition so far?”, I’d probably think about it a few seconds, decide he hasn’t been as bad as expected, observe that he seems to have a sense of restraint that was notably lacking in the Clintons, note that he hasn’t pulled any Jimmy Carter-style foreign policy goofs (yet) and that he seems to understand that Bush is still the only President until January 20, and then I’d likely answer yes. That doesn’t mean that I’d ever vote for Obama or that I actually think he’s got any answers for any of the country’s problems.
Am I hoping that Obama messes up so I can laugh last? Hardly. I hope Obama sprays around a few hundred billion on “job creation”, goes around cutting ribbons and giving inspiring teleprompted speeches, lets Gates handle Iraq and Afghanistan, lets some special prosecutors chase financial crooks, and waits for the economy to come back. That’s the absolute best-case scenario. It could get a lot worse than that (think Pelosi-Reid-Frank-Dodd), but I’m hoping it doesn’t.
December 27th, 2008 at 6:30 am
Let’s hear from Bernanke, Paulson, and Geithner about who was really the “decider” for letting Lehman Brothers go under. I’m betting it was a certain Harvard MBA with a proven track record in running oil businesses in Texas.
And before closing out the Bush disaster, let’s find out what all the “loyal Bushies” in the Departments of Commerce and Labor did in the way of massaging economic data. I’m betting Carlos Gutierrez and Elaine Chao will be responsible for more damage than Bernie Madoff.
December 27th, 2008 at 6:37 am
Weather Channel Accused of Pro-Weather Bias
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/weather_channel_accused_of_pro
December 27th, 2008 at 6:54 am
So the Bush years are coming to a close. It’s the end of an error. — Jerry Smith
December 27th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Not surprisingly the “dead enders” are not going away any time soon. Rather than debate topic issues they still adhere to tired, worn out Repuglican methodology of bate and switch. Although they are a minority their voice is strong in all sorts of media such as radio and TV and they enjoy huge followings. Obama will be pillaged like all Democratic presidents before him by this mean spirited, dishonest group of people.
December 27th, 2008 at 8:21 am
@ Ventura2012 Says: December 26th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
what exactly has Obama done to get such a high approval
To quote the abandoned, knocked up, 18 year old, disillusioned girl:
“He told me he loved me.”
Personally, I don’t know if Obama just used his gift for speech making to say what he needed to in order to get elected and on to the gravy train. I don’t think his ability or desire is where he will fail. I think he will fail if and when he tries to stand up to the political and financial vampire machine that is Washington.
I think it is past time people begin to realize that one person can’t change America. Expecting one person to go into Washington even with a few hundred of his own people on his side and expect to fight his way out of a crowd of 10,000 expert vampires who have been at their game a long time and have seen it all is a pipe dream. There are too many blood sucking vampires in Washington that have too much vested interest in keeping things the way they are and to expect them to care now because someone gave a great speech is naive.
That kind of thing only happens in Hollywood and maybe that is the problem. America has been brainwashed by the Rambo rescue script. That was a different America
Washington still is for the moment the leader and unfortunately the reflection of the free world and I haven’t seen anything in us that says we want things to change
If Obama can actually do something positive here then maybe you all should acknowledge God because miracles really do exist
I’ll be praying for him anyway though
December 27th, 2008 at 8:49 am
A more detailed analysis of how Barack has 79% approval:
The country is roughly 216M whites/other, 39M blacks and 45 M hispanic…assuming that percentage holds for the voting population, I say he got 95% of the black and 70% of the hispanic vote and still has their approval. By my calculation, his race adjusted approval is 70%…still high. But some whites surely don’t approve of him because he is black (hard to quantify). So it may be a wash after all and his 79% may be an accurate picture.
December 27th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I trust that Barak Hussein Obama, Nancy and Hairy will put a stake through this nations decomposing body. Don’t forget clintons. Now they come in pair… supported by Saudis money Xa Xa Xa
I trust that one of the first move will be betrayal of Israel, our only trusted friend in middle east.
I trust that the stupid and criminal economics of Frank, Paulson and Bernake will be followed and shit loads of money will be taken out of the magic hat.
By the way is it true that you need $100000000+ to buy a loaf of bread in Zimbabwe?
I trust that government offices will be added to every street corner and will be filled with fat assed incompetent, lazy government. (3000000 jobs added)
I trust that dog food will be the staple food for many retirees, if they will be able to afford it of course. (Negative interest on savings and collapse of entitlement Ponzy )
I trust that the borders of this country will stay unmanned and undefended from illegal and terrorists the same as with the … (he is still the President, I wasted 2 votes on him)
BTW why no one is mentioning the future terrorist attacks?
You think it is not coming since we have Barak Hussein as our next president? Think again…
Fill up the rest, people.
December 27th, 2008 at 9:29 am
I’ve just been informed by no less an authority than Man Coulter that Obama is a sleeper Kenyan-British-Alien-most definitely not Murkan, terrist atheist Muslin. Get a brain, morans!
Seriously though Barry, debating with these clowns is like getting into a dust-up with creationists, holocaust deniers or global warming skeptics. What was it Robert Heinlein said? Never try to teach a pig to sing; it is a waste of your time and it annoys the pig.
December 27th, 2008 at 9:54 am
BR said during the campaign that he hated politics. Seems like he has changed his mind, and chosen a party. That makes this site just another partisan circle jerk. If I wanted Bush bashing, I would go to Kos.
December 27th, 2008 at 11:00 am
BR @ 6:37: I have a friend who used to work as one of the “on-air personalities” at TWC and she quit in disgust because they everyone there was so excited every time terrible weather was going to hit somewhere. The bigger the potential weather disaster — and hurricanes are the BEST because they last a while — the better their ratings.
So the Onion, once again, isn’t far wrong. More weather is gooood!
December 27th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
BR: Mathematicians have long demonstrated 1000 plus as statistical adequate to represent a broader population.
That is completely untrue and grossly misleading because the adequacy greatly depends on what you mean by vaguely stated “broader population”. Your statement is true if your definition of broader population is a population of Wasilla, Alaska (population of 10K); but your statement is grossly misleading if you are trying to imply that it is true for the entire US population (305,500K).
Why do you think Nielsen Media Research uses 5K homes (it would be much cheaper to use 1K homes if “mathematicians have long demonstrated 1000 plus as statistical adequate to represent a broader population) to represent the 108,000K television households in the United States to be “reliable” for the advertisers?
The precision of a survey (i.e., reliability) increases with greater sample size. Moreover reliability does not equal validity. CNN polls are biased with extremely low validity.
But you are correct that this is one of the least of CNN poll problems:
1. CNN polls are non-transparent. If you ask them for the specific data (% of blacks, whites, adults, registered voters, geographic location, time of the day that the calls were made, the sample design, the non-availability problem, question wording, question order, inappropriate or inadequate weighting of the data, etc.) to run your own analysis as to how reliable (precise) and biased (validity), they will not give you the raw data to verify the results. Why do I need a court subpoena to get that data from them?
2. How did they design the sample? (How the telephone numbers were selected and how the individuals were selected within the household? [most teenagers say they are for Obama because it is cool to be an Obama supporter, teenagers are easily influenced by biased media])
3. How did they address for non-availability problem? Most people work during a day, many business owners work as many as 12 hours a day; therefore, an Oprah watcher or a welfare recipients (like Peggy the Moocher) is more likely to answer a phone during a day than a hard-working taxpaying citizen (like Joe the Plummer) who returns home late and too tired to talk to CNN callers.
4. How did they address the refusal problem? (Tired after long day work Joe the Plummer is more likely to refuse answering the questions than a welfare recipient Obama groupie Peggy the Moocher)
5. What was the exact question wording and question order? (as a lawyer you know that you can get the answer that you want by using this trick)
6. How did they address deliberate, or unconscious, lying or false reporting by respondents?
7. Was the data inappropriately or inadequately weighted by demographic control data?
All of these variables have been shown in various studies to have been sources of error and often of quite substantial error.
December 27th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
There’s no doubt America is falling in love with this guy. Of course it’s possible to fall out of love and that depends on how he does in running the economy primarily. Obviously that’s still to be decided but his timing looks pretty good to me. There’s also the fact that judging by the polls most of the country is in broad agreement with what he wants to do like getting out of Iraq pronto and a complete overhaul of the healthcare system.
The Republicans have got a real dilemma on their hands with this guy who shows all the signs of becoming an iconographic president. That’s the sort that get their picture hung in people’s houses (think FDR or Kennedy). Personally I’d advise them to keep a low profile, look supportive and hope for better days which will come if they will bide their time. I’m not sure they have the patience for this though and way too many conservatives (viz. the comments on this site some of which are very odd) are in bumper sticker land. I read an oped in the Washington Post this morning where David Broder was positing the GOP is becoming a prisoner of reactionary southerners which was demonstrated by the vote over the auto rescue. Whether you agreed or disagreed with the bailout you do have to wonder in purely political terms who in the GOP thought there was any electoral benefit be had in the rustbelt northeast and midwest by voting to turn it into an economic wasteland. The same self destructive sentiments, it seems to me, are abroad in conservative punditland with these constant attempts, which no one is paying any attention to, to connect Obama with this crook Blagoevich. Then the ed page of the WSJ yesterday had a vitriolic attack on Ray LaHood the former REPUBLICAN congressman from IL who Obama has appointed transport sec. And then it seems the leading candidate for chairman of the RNC, who hails from TN I think, is sending out cd’s of Barack the magic negro as christmas presents. Another hit on the CD apparently, is the Star Spanglish Banner…..just the sort of material to aid the outreach to Hispanics? Some would think these people crazy. What it does show surely is the extent to which party is becoming disconnected from the real condition of the country and a prisoner of far right factions either in the South, or sitting in Republican think tanks, or keeping the base riled up on talk radio. When you add all this together it’s essentially a by product of Atwaterism/Roveism, although you can trace it back to the late sixties probably, that seems to have imposed a straight jacket of economic and social fundamentalism on the party which has been overtaken by history but which is going to be very difficult to shake free from. I write all this btw as someone who until recently was a fairly typical northeastern Republican ie. fiscal conservative/social liberal. We’re going to have an interesting few years.
December 27th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Jurgen Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
You seem to be trying to make water run uphill. Sure polls have holes but by and large they are not that far off the mark. For example most of the polls were within 4% of the correct presidential election result. There’s a similar unanimity in all these polls about how well Obama is doing just as there is about how badly Bush is doing. As I recall Obama’s numbers range from the high sixties to the low eighties. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume he’s got the support of at least two thirds of the country.
December 27th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
CNN holds itself out as “the most respected name in news”. The story is presented as news, not an op/ed. As news, it should deal with the facts. And it does, except for Schneider’s subjective comment that you chose to excerpt. At the very least, they should have found a source to quote to defend Bush’s record in an effort to pretend to be be impartial and balanced. CNN’s failure to do so is not only lousy journalism but a clear demonstration of bias.
An example of good journalism might be:
“In spite of having no executive exeprience in either business or government, Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States on November 4, 2008. With no prior executive experience to examine, let’s insted examine his legislative record as both a state and as a U.S. senator.
While an Illinois state senator, President Elect Obama failed to vote either aye or nay on 129 bills put before him for a vote, choosing instead to vote “present” 129 times.
As a U.S. senator, President Elect Obama sponsored 121 bills. Of the 121 bills, 6 made it out of committe, or about 5%. Of those 6 bills, 3 were enacted. While a U.S. senator the President Elect missed 24% of the votes put before the United States Senate.”
All indisputable, verifiable facts. No subjectivity.
Now let’s add an inflammatory biased subjective comment to spice things up.
Groty, a paid senior political analyst of this news organization observed, “President Elect Obama demonstrated indecisiveness to his Illinois constituency for choosing not to take a stand on 129 bills while a state senator. Later, as a U.S. senator, he was clearly ineffective as demonstrated by the fact that 95% of the bills he sponsored didn’t make it out of committee. Furthermore, he didn’t even bother to vote on 24% of the bills put before the Senate. To many Americans, the President Elect’s legislative accomplishments are a pathetic failure. But hey, he gives great speech.”
December 27th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
…But hey, he gives great speech.”–Groty
dude is a total cypher, only knowable by the hack/retreads he has surrounded himself with–allowed himself to be surrounded by..
e.g. Robert Gates, putative (R), Zbig’s long-time water carrier, architect of Iran-Contra=True Change
December 27th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Groty Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Groty you seem to have a bit of an idee fixe about old Obama. It’s an interesting demo if may say so of another aspect of the conservative approach to Obama namely dismissing him as lightweight because he can make great speeches. Interestingly, that was the line with FDR who was constantly referred to as a feather duster if you look at the newspapers in the 32 election campaign. I had to do a paper on it when I was at school This guy, as must be apparent to anyone whatever their politics, is a formidable political and organizational talent. The GOP and it’s noise machine is making a huge mistake underestimating him but it’s their lookout I guess.
December 27th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
@ ottovbvs,
I was talking about CNN polls but you are mixing up every poll in one soup pot. I guess you do not have the needed math or statistics background to understand what I was talking about and to understand that CNN poll possible margin of error is infinite — basically CNN poll is garbage.
December 27th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Those that believe George Bush destroyed the country must explain why he didn’t destroy Texas. In fact, Texas is booming relative to liberal meccas like New York, Michigan and California. In Texas, Bush got the Dems to work with him. In Washington, he rolled over. The new tone was an utter disaster, akin to Nixon’s desire to be liked. The Republicans in name only that ran congress are now out in the street. Why have liberal lite when you can have the real thing?
December 27th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Jurgen Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
@ ottovbvs,
Actually, I said it was quite conceivable the CNN poll had holes but that it’s conclusion wasn’t wildly out of line with most other polls on the same topic. You don’t seem to be able to reply to this perfectly reasonable comment it seems to me without throwing in a load of ad hominem personal stuff. Pity.
December 27th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Since Obama has done essentially nothing for the past 10 years or so, only brain soft dead beats would jump on the feel good groupy bandwagon and give him a thumbs up. But the winds of change will shift as they always do. If the old saw is right and people vote with their wallets then Obamaites will undoubtedly lose ground in the mid-term elections and if the TA guys are right Obama (McCain also if he were elected) will be a one-termer.
December 27th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
As others above noted, one has to wonder how CNN’s polls are conducted. Rasmussen’s Approval Index has been fairly flat since the election (www.rasmussen.com). Given the credability of Rasmussen versus CNN what is all of the hoopla about? I interpret Rasmussen’s Approval Index as an indication that nothing has changed since the election. Let’s see how he does after 6-12 months in office when his relatively “blank slate” record has some chalk marks on it.
December 27th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
It’s like moths to a flame isn’t it??
LOL
December 27th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
“Those that believe George Bush destroyed the country must explain why he didn’t destroy Texas….”
Obviously because he LEFT it for 8 years…..
As to Bush bashing, the prick is a total CUNT! (if i may be allowed to mix genital metaphors)
He is SCUM. An incompetent loser. A slacker imbecile with a bible for a codpiece. He’s an inbred con man with shit for brains and a discredit to his race. Cheney? Pure SATANIC evil. The two of them have done more damage than a thousand Bin Laden’s.
defenders?
December 27th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
“If I wanted Bush bashing, I would go to Kos.” -nolaw.
With Bush’s 20-something percent approval rating, I think you will find “Bush bashing” everywhere except the wing-nut sites.
December 28th, 2008 at 12:21 am
From a so called conservative point of view W did a hecka of a job. He fulfilled all their dreams. First, “government is the problem” Rep mantra was very successful during the last 8-yrs. You hire inept flunkies to run the various departments and voila, you get, “see I told you so” failed government. A vindication for conservative voices. Second, to prove your manhood, and in effect push the Christian right agenda, you try to make other countries into your likeness. There is the 27% of the population who still favor Ws exploits into Iraq, a country who had nothing to do with 9/11. Since WMD was not found the storyline shifted as to why that greatly divided country was invaded. Regardless of the primary motive, some righties vision of Iraq was a PAX Americana and for that matter for a greater Arab world. And third, although the list could be endless as to why Conservatives attach themselves to W so tightly, W kept health care off the government books. W was so successful at this that he blocked imported drugs from Canada and he quietly forced a large segment of the veterans community off of the health care VA rolls. That is correct. In 2002 W and his Rep friends pushed through a law making it impossible for veterans making over $40K, family of four, to get any medical help from the Veterans Administration. W and his rich friends feel veterans will be employed by some employer who will cover their health care insurance so need to look for the VA for health care. You have to dig deep within the VA website to find the info. W has done a great a job for the 27% percent of the country who still carry his water.
December 28th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Well, I agree that GWB was not a god president and in fact a disaster. To me he was a disaster because he went into Iraq to fight an unnecessary war.
However, I do not find George Bush very culpable for the current economic situation. Unless his administration forced all the geniuses who run all the genius banks to write loans to people that they couldn’t pay I will continue to not find him culpable in this respect.
He is of course responsible for not reigning in spending during his years in office, but so is everyone in congress. I believe most of them go along with the earmark/pork scheme.
Despite the fact that there are a lot of people here who do not like all the bail outs, it seems that there is a fairly broad consensus that the bail outs need to be done. While I am skeptical I am willing to leave this up to the experts.
Finally, I agree with those who claim the media is biased in favor of Obama too:
“There is no getting around it, this man who emerged triumphant from the Iowa caucuses is something unusual in American politics. He has that close-cropped hair and the high-school-smooth face with that deep saxophone of a voice. His borrowings, rhetorical and intellectual, are dizzying. One minute he recalls the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his pacing and aching, staccato repetitions. The next minute he is updating John F. Kennedy with his ‘Ask not what America can do for you’ riff on idealism and hope….Such words mine a vein of American history that leaves more than a few listeners misty-eyed.”
— New York Times reporter Michael Powell in a January 5 news story about Barack Obama campaigning in New Hampshire.
If that’s not media bias, I don’t know what is.
December 28th, 2008 at 1:34 am
If I were a conservative within the GOP I would be aiming my guns at my own leaders and not the leaders of the other party. That’s just because they are closer and you’re more likely to take a few out
December 28th, 2008 at 9:40 am
devil_futility Says: However, I do not find George Bush very culpable for the current economic situation….
Well, that statement does surprise me. Many economists have been sounding the alarm for years about the impending disaster which has befallen the world. What W and company did was simply ignore the writing on the wall and not listen to outside counsel. There are too many examples where Bush wanted bad news pushed under the rug because we all know — markets correct themselves. A clear example of Ws culpability was his shifting all federal resources to the war on terror and posting low prosecutions against Wall Street criminals as a result. Look at the SEC recent actions in regards to the Madoff scandal, since this is fresh on everyone’s mind. The SEC ignored the warning signs for years that this guy was running a massive stealing scheme. How could this be missed? It goes back to W — markets correct themselves. These governmental agencies such as the SEC are suppose to protect the public’s interest against monsters such as Madoff. Remember what Paulson was saying just before September 08. The market fundamentals are sound. Paulson is Ws Secretary of Treasury. Ws gang are so tied to ideology that it was only until Lehman Bros finally collapsed that they came to grips on reality, too little, too late. Before Sep 08, Paulson blamed borrowers for much of the calamity in the mortgage market because, they walked away from their obligations. He trotted out several failed programs to help home owners but each one was skewed in favor of the predatory lenders so they were doomed before they went to press. Had W hired pragmatic people within the Administration this financial nightmare would have been less severe. W has been an absolute failure and was intentionally asleep at the switch.