Overall, 56% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
I'm not sure that's very promising when 59% of the voters voted for him. Seems to me 4% have lost faith... Seems that number continues to dwindle as more of those voters get a healthy does of reality, rather than "celebrity".
Just wait until all these people with a hand stretched out realize Obama's reaching up their skirt, planning to tax them to death, instead of giving handouts.
You're talking about that same 56%. They are the ones with their hands out that do NOT contribute to society or pay taxes. At least not at the level that those that do will be in order to keep their outstretched hands full. Obama himself is one of those hand out people. He's spent his whole life on government aid and is proud of it.
he has a vendetta against those who prosper. Watch out DP entrepreneurs....he'll be after you if you begin to make 200k a year.
I'd hardly call 200k "prospering"... It takes a lot of REAL work. Food stamps and Campaign contributions do not count.
#1 Obama got 53% of the vote, not 59%. #2 Rasmussen is known for a heavy GOP lean, Gallup has Obama at 61% (edit: actually he's now at 62%, that was from yesterday.) Out of touch much? I'm sure at least 90% of Americans would think making 200K a year is pretty damn good to say the least.
OK, trying to find a current ranking for the pollsters in this year's elections.... anything is hard to find on this topic that is not subjective. While this looks to be accurate it comes from what appears to be a conservative news/blog site http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/most-accurate-polls-for-2008/ This poll was conducted by Fordham University in NYC, so I don't theink the actual results are skewed. This poll shows Rasmussen as most accurate. Any thoughts?
And yes I know about Rasmussen's so called close calls on previous elections. They have a habit of adjusting their numbers on the final day before the election AFTER they're done trying to manipulate good press for the GOP. You can look back at the numbers for this election, up until the very end they had McCain performing far better than all of the other polls. At the very end they adjusted their numbers so they would be more correct so they could claim to be a good at what they do in the future. But their motives are clear. They push a GOP agenda.
59 is the number that NPR, CNN, MSNBC and other history re-writers have been using... Yes, polls are always wrong when they are not in your favor. A well educated 2 income family working very hard, it's not that much. Remember, its all relative. $200k to a single white dude in Arkansas is a lot different than $200k to a two income family with 3 kids in NYC or Calif. Damn class envyers, they just don't get it.
Whether or not they push a GOP agenda is not an issue. I does seem to be a fairly popular opinion shared by many liberals. We are talking about accuracy. Since you can't find any data to support your position, discredit the other positions source of information? Nice. Sorry, so far all you have is your OPINION. How about validating that OPINION with some data? [edit] You know, it really doesn't even matter. The point is that Obama is losing popularity. I don't think that is a point of contention with you, is it? [/edit]
You're the very first person I've seen use it. The number is 53%. Claiming that someone else used a false # first (and I'd like to see some proof of that 'cuz it sounds like bull to me) doesn't change the fact that you were using false information to make your "point" --- "Damn class envyers" ??? Get what exactly? I'm well aware of the difference between the cost of living in different places. I've lived in NYC and I've lived in a rural setting. I'm still not going to buy the idea that $200K isn't a good amount of money, even in Manhattan. The idea that I'm going to be feeling sorry for someone making $200K (and btw some people in my family do make that much) while 50 million Americans don't have health care and unemployment is as high as it is... is just insane to me. No way. As of 2004 the top 1% of Americans owned 34% of America's wealth while the bottom 40% owned less than 0.2% ... If you don't see anything wrong with that then... I don't know what to say. To me it's obvious that the playing field is not even enough. He's certainly lost some popularity from the first couple of weeks because that was "honeymoon" time but no I don't think he has lost substantial support since then. In fact a look at the numbers shows that such a notion is patently ridiculous. The right wingers keep trying to start the meme that Obama is getting less popular but the truth is that all that is happening is those on the right wing are getting more and more rabid (see Glenn Beck) --- just because the loonies who are still supporting the ideas that got our country into this mess hate Obama more doesn't mean that the average American supports The President any less. Now for the numbers: Obama's Gallup approval rating as of April 3: 62% Obama's Gallup approval rating as of February 24: 59% Yup, clearly Obama Is Losing Popularity! I recommend knowing some facts before you make claims just because you heard the same claim from the right wing meme machine. They have a habit of being completely full of it.
As I've been saying before, show me a poll that actually polls every american, and I'll believe it's validity. Until they stop polling such a small minority of people (1k-1.5k) then I will continue to doubt them. And it doesn't matter where you live, 200k/year is still very good money. Considering the average working american with a degree makes around 50-60k/year. You're an idiot if you think 200k isn't a lot of money to be making. Regardless of if you have 3 kids and a wife or are single with no kids. Unless, of course, you are living in a huge house, blowing it on stupid things, etc. than it wouldn't seem like a lot. But to people who are smart with their money, 200k is way more than enough. But, watch out, the new budget calls for small businesses and middle class americans to be taxed to all hell.
We had that "poll" on election day and guess what? The polls were pretty much dead on. Polls work. People aren't as different from one another as they like to think they are. You can get a very good idea of what a million people's responses would be like by asking a sub group of 1000 people if you understand the statistics behind polling (and obviously the people at Gallup do.) I am not going to give you an entire statistics lesson but... I do recommend looking into it, it may give you a better understanding of logic. Bush economics has destroyed the middle class. When are the Republican faithful going to realize that those economic policies only work for the very, very top. It's sad how GOP politicians pit the middle class against the "poor" while simultaneously making sure the middle class gets ripped off whenever possible. From 2001 to 2009 the average American's real income (adjusted for inflation) actually went down while the richest 400 Americans doubled their wealth. Think about that. The GOP economic approach hurts the middle class even more than it hurts the poor (and that's saying something.) The fact is unless your hatred gay people is your #1 priority in life and/or you think abortion is murder and/or are a millionaire you have no reason to be a Republican.
Sorry buddy, took 3 statistics courses in college, and they did not change my views on polling, so there is no way you are Nothing against you, democrats, republicans, or anyone. It's just I can skew the poll results anyway I'd like to. There are zero polling companys out there that don't do that. The Obama admin calls one up, says get us some nice results, pays 10k for it. And bam, its done. The GOP wants to make Obama look bad, so they pay a company 10k to do that, and bam, its done. I'm not saying the theory behind polling is bad. I'm saying when it is put in practice in todays politics, it just does not work. How many people didn't get to vote on election day for various things? How many people didn't vote period? That is also not a very good thing to try. While your deployed you get told you can vote by absentee ballot, but, its really not that easy to do when your running 12-18 hour missions in the heat/sun. When you get back you just want to clean your weapon, get some food real quick, and go to sleep. You don't have the time to fill it out. On top of that, they rarrely get there in time. I'm not saying this would have changed the election results, because I don't really think it would have. I'm just saying that that is not an accurate assessment of american opinion. The polls claim AMERICAN approval rating, not american REGISTERED VOTER opinion. However, I think every American should vote, that is the great thing about living here, you get a chance to voice your opinion about who represents you. I voiced mine, and my state voted McCain. I honestly think the electoral college needs a revamping tbh. All candidates have to do is try to win the big states. Instead of actually getting the majority of votes. *Shrug*. Oh well, its not going to happen anytime soon.
Yes there is some wiggle room for manipulation in polls. Obviously or Gallup & Rasmussen wouldn't be about five points apart on the approval ratings. But you can look at the comparison of a poll to itself to get a decent trendline (usually although sometimes a poll will have some internal skewing.) Or you can look at an averaging of polling which I think gets you the best results (especially if you do it in an advanced way like the dude at http://www.FiveThirtyEight.com who pretty much called the election dead on.) Also my point with Gallup is pretty similar with Rasmussen (even though I don't buy their numbers) --- Obama was at 57% on 2/21 on Rasmussen and is at 56% on 4/3 --- as I'm sure you know, that is not a statistically relevant move. There's no good evidence that Obama's popularity is slipping over the last 6 or 7 weeks. All that's happened is that the Glenn Becks of the world have gone more and more batshit crazy. I do agree with you on that and not just because Al Gore would have won in 2000 I think the electoral system allows the candidates to basically ignore large parts of the country that are either reliably Democratic or Republican. In that my complaint isn't so much that they focus on the "big states" because I don't think that's true. McCain & Obama spent almost no time in California, New York, or Texas (unless they were doing fund raising.) It's that they focus on the so called "swing states" and the rest of the country is watching the campaign on television like a sporting event.I was in Virginia this time around so that was exciting. But in 2004 I was in New York and we were basically ignored. Everyone knew we were going for Kerry.
Yeah, Obama spent like 30 minutes in Texas. Same with McCain. Everyone knows TX votes Republican. And they don't even spend time in the smaller swing states really, unless they know its going to be a very close election, like this one was (at least the popular vote). I think, no matter what your political preferances are, pretty much all of America can agree on one thing. Politics is corrupt. Politics needs to be revamped. The election cycle needs to be revamped. And I always wonder what would have happened had Gore won. I believe we'd be in Afghanistan. But, I don't think we'd be in Iraq. I honestly think, Bush had been looking for an excuse to go in to finish what his daddy didn't have the political power to do. I completely agree with the invasion. I completely agree with staying a bit to help fix things we broke. Like their power and water. Thats all perfectly fine. But once soverignty was returned we should have gotten out. Had we have done that, 3 of my close friends who I watched die wouldn't have......but instead we had a horrible strategy. The Iraq thing was mismanaged horribly. And because of Iraq, the original task at hand, fighting terrorism threats against the free world, got put on a back burner. I think Bush did his best, but, I think picking Rumsfeld to run the wars was a bad idea. Gates came in and things were much better. That happened while I was in Iraq. There was a noticable shift in strategy just by the missions that we had come down. Bush should have been more hands on with it, then he wouldn't have had to visit so many families.
Well I'm all for a national popular vote but if it couldn't get done after the mess of 2000 I don't see how it's going to get done now. The political machines are already well oiled to battle like this, they don't want to have to come up with all new strategies. The big theory I've heard against moving to a national popular vote is if you do it that way then the candidates will spend all of their time in places with the highest population density and there's some truth to that, but at least they'd have reason to go to states all across the nation instead of just the few "swing states" like Pennsylvania and Florida over and over again.
I agree. I just found this and I think it is a great video. Doesn't really have anything to do with taxes but its a good video. Lasts about 10 minutes. http://wimp.com/thegovernment
Its all a matter of time and obama will be very famous all around the world due to the reforms.he has already done a good job by shutting the the guantama(Oops) jail