Obama's Approval Rises In Superstorm Sandy's Wake

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

The difference is that in this situation the Obama admin demonstrates competence. While the GW admin in the same circumstance demonstrated complete incompetence, and that is important.

wait..Obama is running against Bush?

If not, how is that relevant in any way to the current election that you reference?

I don't love Obama, but I am sickened by the undeserved extreme hatred conservatives have for Obama, and Clinton before him. Conservative hatred of liberals has become psychotic.

It is a two way street. Your lack of acknowledgement of that may indicate that you have bought into that psychotic hatred and are now that which you seem to despise.

How much time do you spend on all the wacko threads conservatives write about Obama, pointing out how crazy they sound?

About as much as i spend on Obamessiah threads proclaiming his greatness.

His leadership here amounts to the same thing Bush did: made funds available upon request, per the laws of the land. The difference here is, the storm that caused Sandy actually rained on Obama's house.

reply to post by poet1b

Clinton was a great president.

Yes great for the wars that he started and allied with the Jihadists in Bosnia to overthrow the Yugoslavian forces.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Yeah, Obama is running against the former GW admin, that will be swept into power should Romney win. Romney in all essential purposes is Bush.

This is a legitimate issue that demonstrates competence on the part of the Obama admin.

It's not some wacko birther thread.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Yeah, Obama is running against the former GW admin, that will be swept into power should Romney win. Romney in all essential purposes is Bush.

This is a legitimate issue that demonstrates competence on the part of the Obama admin.

It's not some wacko birther thread.

Well, to label "birthers" as wacko is an ad hominem of its own variety.

That aside, can you differentiate the differences between Bush and Obama? Like with war....how come Obama had more predator strikes in his first year than Bush has in all 8 years, yet Obama is somehow more peaceful? Each of those predator strikes kills innocent people.....keep that in mind.

Or, if you prefer to focus on the Sandy issue....enumerate what it is that Obama did that Bush didn't do.

I keep seeing you making these vague comments about your political views. I would like to see you be more specific.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
To have our elections decided on emotional moments of fad?

This is not New.
After 911 Bush had the Highest Approval Rating ever for a President.
Of course , after the Neocon truth came out years later, He finished with the Lowest Approval Ratings ever.

Not quite.. In what context are you making the claim?

If you are talking about over all averages, and im assuming you are -
Presidential Approval Ratings -- Gallup Historical Statistics and Trends


** The info below was modified by me. I removed the dates in office except for George W.

Gallup Historical Presidential Job Approval Statistics

Overall Averages

President / Dates in office / Average Approval rating %

Harry Truman 45.4

Dwight Eisenhower 65.0

John Kennedy 70.1

Lyndon Johnson 55.1

Richard Nixon 49.0

Gerald Ford 47.2

Jimmy Carter 45.5

Ronald Reagan 52.8

George H.W. Bush 60.9

Bill Clinton 55.1

George W. Bush
January 2001-January 2009 49.4

The info is from Gallup and is based on the Presidents entire term average (regardless if its one or two terms).

Carter
Ford
Nixon
Truman

All had lower approval ratings than Bush W when they left office.


With that being said I dont see how they can compare job approval ratings between Romeny and Obama when Obama is the President and Romney is not. Since Romney is not even a member of Congress or President there is nothing he can do in terms of how well he handles an event.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Not quite.. In what context are you making the claim?

Carter
Ford
Nixon
Truman

All had lower approval ratings than Bush W when they left office.

The Context of "Lowest Approval Ratings " when leaving Office.
Neocon George had a 22% rating, The Lowest ever. www.cbsnews.com...

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Not quite.. In what context are you making the claim?

Carter
Ford
Nixon
Truman

All had lower approval ratings than Bush W when they left office.

The Context of "Lowest Approval Ratings " when leaving Office.
Neocon George had a 22% rating, The Lowest ever. www.cbsnews.com...

edit on 4-11-2012 by Tw0Sides because: add link

The rating you are giving is based on the CBS poll when he left office and nothing else.

The Gallup poll is based on the entire term in office, averaging highs and lows. His rating when he left office was 49 percent.

reply to post by Xcathdra


In my first post that you responded to, I stated Bush had the Highest Approval Rating ever, after 911, then I pointed out , he had the Lowest Ever, when he Left.
Im not sure why you find this hard to understand, as I Clearly stated 2 different Periods in History.

My Original Post was intending to show Bushs Neocon Policies , and their Unpopularity showing in the Polls.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


oook...
So let me ask -

How can a person be given a job approval rating when the actions judged requires a person to be PResident?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

oook...
So let me ask -

How can a person be given a job approval rating when the actions judged requires a person to be PResident?

Not sure why you asked that question?
In the other 4 post of mine in this thread, I never mentioned Romney.
And why would I ?
This thread was about Obama's Approval Rating.

Originally posted by poet1b

m.yahoo.com... ng=en-US

Since Oct. 28, a national tracking poll by Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling has shown Obama's job approval making a net gain of 6 percentage points. PPP is also the only national poll tracking a similar metric for Romney, his favorability rating, on a daily basis. During the same period, Romney's favorability has dropped by a net 7 points.

If a weak debate performance could drop Obama's poll numbers as much as they did, then doing a good job in dealing with the aftermath of Sandy should give him a much stronger boost. Meanwhile Romney's numbers are dropping. Maybe people don't want to be treated like the dog and strapped to the roof.

Maybe fate has smiled upon us.

So you think the death of over 100 Americans is fate smiling upon you?

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
Not sure why you asked that question?
In the other 4 post of mine in this thread, I never mentioned Romney.
And why would I ?
This thread was about Obama's Approval Rating.

Then you should go back and reread the op article and post - It discusses Romneys approval as well in favorability.

Originally posted by poet1b

m.yahoo.com... ng=en-US

Since Oct. 28, a national tracking poll by Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling has shown Obama's job approval making a net gain of 6 percentage points. PPP is also the only national poll tracking a similar metric for Romney, his favorability rating, on a daily basis. During the same period, Romney's favorability has dropped by a net 7 points.

Similar metric for Romney.... The comparison is being done against Obamas uptick.

Very much a valid question... I was not aware we could not ask questions of this nature in a forum based on discussion.

If you dont wish the answer / engage thats fine.. your choice. I figured it would add to the discussion since favorability is based on a persons perception on how another person might do in a given enviornment, like President.

These headlines are helping Obama?

Obama seeks votes as complaints mount over storm response...
www.washingtontimes.com...

Devastated residents lash out at Bloomberg during unannounced visit...
www.nypost.com...

'I feel like a victim of Hurricane Katrina'...
apnews.myway.com...

Chaos reigns at free gas fiasco...
www.nypost.com...

1.9 million still dark...
www.reuters.com...

Fear of the Dark...
www.nytimes.com...

FEMA Out Of Water, No Delivery Until Monday...
www.breitbart.com... onday

Massive housing problem...
www.nytimes.com...

Residents arm up: Bats, machetes, shotguns...
www.nypost.com...

'It's Like The Wild West'...
www.dailymail.co.uk...

'Anarchy in Queens'...
www.nydailynews.com...

Let me guess. This story is being way under-reported by most MSM TV networks...................

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady



ahh....and there we have it.

What Poet is talking about isn't true. That is why he won't post anything that backs up his opinions. He is providing a steaming plate of copypasta from < insert website here >

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Are we in Afghanistan to win or to lose. It is called war.

The Obama admin was on top of dealing with Sandy right away, while the GW admin waiting weeks, as the situation deteriorated before acting. Thee is a huge difference.

It is the same with the birther nonsense, all is needed is a little research to find out how ridiculous the birthed movement is. Obama is born of a naturalized mother. Even if Obama was born in Kenya, he is still a US citizen.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


www.nytimes.com...

As Sandy barreled toward New Jersey, there were hopeful mutters on the right to the effect that it might become President Obama’s Katrina, with voters blaming him for the damage, and that this might matter on Tuesday. Sorry, guys: polls show overwhelming approval for Mr. Obama’s handling of the storm. Sorry, guys: polls show overwhelming approval for Mr. Obama’s handling of the storm, and a significant rise in his overall favorability ratings.

And he deserves the bump. For the response to Sandy, like the success of the auto bailout, is a demonstration that Mr. Obama’s philosophy of government — which holds that the government can and should provide crucial aid in times of crisis — works. And conversely, the contrast between Sandy and Katrina demonstrates that leaders who hold government in contempt cannot provide that aid when it is needed.

But for me the difference is summed up in two images. One is the nightmare at the New Orleans convention center, where thousands were stranded for days amid inconceivable squalor, an outrage that all of America watched live on TV, but to which top officials seemed oblivious. The other is the scene in flooded Hoboken, with the National Guard moving in the day after the storm struck to deliver food and water and rescue stranded residents.

.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


www.examiner.com...

President Obama continued to receive positive reviews from several governors of states hit hard by the superstorm Hurricane Sandy.

On October 30, bipartisan praise for President Obama’s effectiveness and cooperation came from the governors as damage assessments and federal emergency efforts began in the wake of the extreme weather that devastated many areas of the northeastern coastal region of the United States.

Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia commended Obama’s handling of the disaster response by saying, “The election’s going to come, but it says a lot about the president, and it makes me feel good to be an American that people have had the right focus,” according to the Washington Post.

While you have a few short lines, when you read the stories, everyone is praising Obama's handling of the situation.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I think you are overstating things here. Every drone strike does not kill innocent people.
I take issue with the premise that drones are inherently evil. They take human pilots out of harm’s way. They can linger in areas longer than a fighter jet giving them more time to identify the target. With fighter jets there would be more collateral damage and more deaths.

One of the reasons there have been more strikes by drones than in the Bush years is because we have thousands more drones.

When talking about strikes you should take into account all air strikes not just drones as that would be the only fair way to account for them. Otherwise it would be like complaining about helicopter strikes and ignoring strikes from fighter jets.

War is never easy or clean the idea that war can be waged where innocents do not get caught in the crossfire is a pipe dream.

Pakistan was even working with the administration to identify targets because they see them as a threat as well they came out last year and admitted it.

I am a proponent for unmanned drones because it takes a human pilot out of harm’s way. I think some would prefer our pilots be shot down more. (Not accusing you but saying in general)

I had hoped by now we would have ground drones to accompany our soldiers because I am a veteran and do not wish to see our soldiers put in any more danger than need be.

The world is far from perfect or we wouldn’t be in conflicts but since we are we should give our soldiers the best chance at survival as technically possible. We still could do much more but there is no reason to go backwards.

The birther argument is ridicules his mother is a citizen it wouldn’t matter where he was born last election he ran against McCain who was born in Panama.

Originally posted by solidguy

Originally posted by poet1b

Meanwhile Romney's numbers are dropping. Maybe people don't want to be treated like the dog and strapped to the roof.

Maybe fate has smiled upon us.

Obama is fighting for his political life in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, Ohio, and New Hampshire. How sad, and desperate is it when Clinton is sent into Pennsylvania to hold rallies?

As far as the lame dog comment, you realize that Obama used to EAT dogs?

You would too if your father fed you dog meat as a child.


Romney abused his pet as an adult...there is a difference


As for Sandy, we saw how a president can neglect Americans when Bush took several weeks to even travel to Katrina-ravaged New Orleans. That's not what we're seeing here

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Are we in Afghanistan to win or to lose. It is called war.

The Obama admin was on top of dealing with Sandy right away, while the GW admin waiting weeks, as the situation deteriorated before acting. Thee is a huge difference.

It is the same with the birther nonsense, all is needed is a little research to find out how ridiculous the birthed movement is. Obama is born of a naturalized mother. Even if Obama was born in Kenya, he is still a US citizen.

Now, I am not going to argue the merits of the birther argument. But I will also not call them whacko's.

RE: Sandy....you do realize that the governers of each state has to request help, right? Bush provided the help he was supposed to as soon as he was asked to do so. Same with Obama. They both responded as their official duty required.

ETA: in no way do I defend the Bush presidency. I only defend honesty here.