• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Five years in, Obama and Bush poll numbers nearly identical

We do still have a Congress, don't we?

Actually, no we don't have a House any more..
Aside from only planning to work 114 days next year, Boehner's stated goal is to have a net loss of laws..
Realistic with the exponential growth in technology, eh ?
 
more revision--why didn't it pop until just before GWB left ?

Must have been one of those 8 year bubbles.

either that, or the bubble and its pop really had nothing to do with the president, whoever he may have been.
 
That's the problem: The office of president keeps getting more and more power, and therefore more and more ability to actually cause damage to the USA.
We do still have a Congress, don't we?




We've got one, but I'm scratching my head trying to remember the last time that it did something that was good for all of the people in the USA.
 
The headline spins it just a bit, Obama's numbers are actually a bit worse even. :) If it looks like a lame duck, walks like a lame duck, quacks like a lame duck......:lol:



"In fact, Bush comes out one point ahead, 40 percent to 39 percent, respectively.The Gallup daily tracking poll for November 5[SUP]th[/SUP] 2013 puts Obama’s approval at 39 percent, with 53 percent disapproving of his job performance.
By comparison, polling for the first week of November in 2005 had Bush’s approval at 40 percent, with 55 percent disapproving of his job performance.
And the negative comparison to Bush’s numbers is potentially worse for Obama than just a tough headline.
As former Bush adviser Matthew Dowd said on ABC’s “This Week,” the real damage lies in the fact that historically low approval numbers often constrain a president’s ability to rebound with the public.
“I think what you have right now is you talked about the floor of the president's approval numbers, which are almost exactly where President Bush's were. Every time you establish a new floor, you establish a new ceiling,” Dowd said.
Noting that Bush’s approval free fall “wasn’t all about Katrina,” Dowd said Obama faces a similar assault from multiple fronts.
"The president's problems have been brewing for a while,” Dowd said. “What the Republican circus did was cover up a lot of the president's problems. That circus that went on with the Republicans for a while. And then once that was over, it revealed a deeper problem with the presidency."



Five years in, Obama and Bush poll numbers nearly identical

What a coincidence, Obama and Bush are nearly identical themselves.
 
But, did you vote for the previous fool, the one who looks more and more like the current one?

It's an unfair insult to President Bush to suggest he looks more and more like Obama. Obama may be trying to gain some semblance of competency by adopting/retaining some of the Bush programs, but he isn't even close in personal integrity and competence, in my view.
 
more revision--why didn't it pop until just before GWB left ?

Several $trillion were lost in the stock market at the end of the Clinton Presidency and as Bush was coming into office. Due to Bush policies, the economy was able to recover from that, as well as recover from the shock of 9/11 and the subsequent chill on American business, and reach new record highs for the stock market and unemployment levels in the mid 4% range, levels that Obama can only dream about.
 
Harry Reid actually exercises Obama's veto power by not letting anything coming out of the House go to a vote.

That again--discounting the FACT that the House refused bi-cameral conferences 18 times..Refusing to acknowledge that GOP jobs bills are loaded with legislative riders with no relation to the jobs bill..Boehner was very clear about wanting ZERO new bills .
 
Harry Reid actually exercises Obama's veto power by not letting anything coming out of the House go to a vote.

MEANWHILE, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES....

(Insert scene of chirping birds and unicorns)
 
Several $trillion were lost in the stock market at the end of the Clinton Presidency and as Bush was coming into office. Due to Bush policies, the economy was able to recover from that, as well as recover from the shock of 9/11 and the subsequent chill on American business, and reach new record highs for the stock market and unemployment levels in the mid 4% range, levels that Obama can only dream about.

and what has been happening to the stock market recently?
 
and what has been happening to the stock market recently?

The stock market has been going up because there are fewer places left to invest, and to difficult to start up in the US with the federal and State bureaucracies. It's better to invest in established companies, many of whom have their manufacturing plants in foreign countries. Personally I would not invest in the stock market today though have done in the recent past.
 
I don't understand how a president could even have such a high approval rating while congress is so low considering our congress is responsible for legislation and spending...

It's the same principle as to why people will say things online that they wouldn't say to someone in person.

Anonymity.

In this case, it's the difference between being able to be critical of A person or being critical of a faceless body. Because the Congress is made up of hundreds of people spanning all parts of the political spectrum it's very easy to find reasons why you dislike it and very easy to be very negative towards it.

But it's more difficult to do that with a specific INDIVIDUAL. It's the same reason why generally you won't find an individual Senator or Congressman who has an approval rating round the same point that Congresses approval rating as a whole is. Because generally, more people like "Their guy" than will state they like the group as a whole.
 
and what has been happening to the stock market recently?

What's been happening in the stock market recently is a Fed based ponzi scam that will implode as soon as the Fed decides no longer to flood the bond markets with make believe American dollars. Hold on to your "ass"ets, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
 
What's been happening in the stock market recently is a Fed based ponzi scam that will implode as soon as the Fed decides no longer to flood the bond markets with make believe American dollars. Hold on to your "ass"ets, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

so, it's going up, but is about to implode as it is not possible for the economy to improve while there is a Democrat in the white House.
 
The headline spins it just a bit, Obama's numbers are actually a bit worse even. :) If it looks like a lame duck, walks like a lame duck, quacks like a lame duck......:lol:



"In fact, Bush comes out one point ahead, 40 percent to 39 percent, respectively.The Gallup daily tracking poll for November 5[SUP]th[/SUP] 2013 puts Obama’s approval at 39 percent, with 53 percent disapproving of his job performance.
By comparison, polling for the first week of November in 2005 had Bush’s approval at 40 percent, with 55 percent disapproving of his job performance.
And the negative comparison to Bush’s numbers is potentially worse for Obama than just a tough headline.
As former Bush adviser Matthew Dowd said on ABC’s “This Week,” the real damage lies in the fact that historically low approval numbers often constrain a president’s ability to rebound with the public.
“I think what you have right now is you talked about the floor of the president's approval numbers, which are almost exactly where President Bush's were. Every time you establish a new floor, you establish a new ceiling,” Dowd said.
Noting that Bush’s approval free fall “wasn’t all about Katrina,” Dowd said Obama faces a similar assault from multiple fronts.
"The president's problems have been brewing for a while,” Dowd said. “What the Republican circus did was cover up a lot of the president's problems. That circus that went on with the Republicans for a while. And then once that was over, it revealed a deeper problem with the presidency."



Five years in, Obama and Bush poll numbers nearly identical

Here is something to think about when a president's approval rating is at 45% or below just before the mid term election.


The following midterms happened when a president’s approval rating is at 45% or below:
1974 Ford 42% Minus 5 senate Minus 48 House seats
1982 Reagan 43% Plus 1 senate Minus 26 House seats
1994 Clinton 41% Minus 9 senate Minus 54 House seats
2006 Bush II 37% Minus 6 senate Minus 33 House seats
2010 Obama 45% Minus 6 senate Minus 63 House seats

But keep in mind that President Obama has 11 months to climb above this and since 1 November when he was at 39% he has climbed back up to 41% today according to the RCP averages.
 
so, it's going up, but is about to implode as it is not possible for the economy to improve while there is a Democrat in the white House.

Did I say that?!?

The stock market began to regain strength in early 2009, after TARP was passed in late 2008 and the banking system was stabilized. It continued to rise as world economies continued to flounder, particularly in Europe, and the American dollar and the American stock market were again seen as the last, safe port in the storm. The American economy continued and continues to stagnate, which is why the Fed for the past couple of years has continued to pump money into the economy in the hope of creating economic activity to sustain some semblance of growth. It's not been pretty. With other investments like bonds and standard bank based investment certificates being a virtual zero in income generation because the Fed is artificially suppressing interest rates and with real estate in the US remaining depressed, the stock market remains the only vehicle for income generation and growth. If the Fed pulls out, it will shock the stock market into a massive correction. But it is a great place to find asset growth while the getting is good.
 
Did I say that?!?

The stock market began to regain strength in early 2009, after TARP was passed in late 2008 and the banking system was stabilized. It continued to rise as world economies continued to flounder, particularly in Europe, and the American dollar and the American stock market were again seen as the last, safe port in the storm. The American economy continued and continues to stagnate, which is why the Fed for the past couple of years has continued to pump money into the economy in the hope of creating economic activity to sustain some semblance of growth. It's not been pretty. With other investments like bonds and standard bank based investment certificates being a virtual zero in income generation because the Fed is artificially suppressing interest rates and with real estate in the US remaining depressed, the stock market remains the only vehicle for income generation and growth. If the Fed pulls out, it will shock the stock market into a massive correction. But it is a great place to find asset growth while the getting is good.

No, you really didn't say that.
What I was reacting to was the correlation of perception about the state of the economy and the letter after the name of the current president.

Whether the quantitative easing you are describing is a good thing in the long term or not, I'm not sure. Yes, it is helping the stock market gain in value, as it keeps interest rates low.

IMO, there is no long term solution to keeping a healthy economy that doesn't involve more jobs, higher wages, and more middle class wage earners. I don't think either of the two parties has a workable policy to make that happen.
 
No, you really didn't say that.
What I was reacting to was the correlation of perception about the state of the economy and the letter after the name of the current president.

Whether the quantitative easing you are describing is a good thing in the long term or not, I'm not sure. Yes, it is helping the stock market gain in value, as it keeps interest rates low.

IMO, there is no long term solution to keeping a healthy economy that doesn't involve more jobs, higher wages, and more middle class wage earners. I don't think either of the two parties has a workable policy to make that happen.

Can't disagree - I would say, however, that the ACA is a net depresser of economic activity and jobs in the US right now and until that changes the US and world economies are going to stagger along with no real, serious growth in sight.
 
Can't disagree - I would say, however, that the ACA is a net depresser of economic activity and jobs in the US right now and until that changes the US and world economies are going to stagger along with no real, serious growth in sight.

The cost of health care is and has been for some time a major depressor of economic activity in the US. If the ACA can at least level off the increase somewhat, as it seems to be doing currently, then it might help a bit, but we have a long way to go to solve the health care cost crisis we're experiencing.
 
The cost of health care is and has been for some time a major depressor of economic activity in the US. If the ACA can at least level off the increase somewhat, as it seems to be doing currently, then it might help a bit, but we have a long way to go to solve the health care cost crisis we're experiencing.

I agree - I was referring more to the negative impact on employment and the one year waiver on the employer mandate is not helping, simply causing continued resistance against new hires.
 
The best indicator will be where this country will be when Obama leaves office. GWB took a country with a budget surplus and drove this country to the brink of economic and moral bankruptcy. Obama took over a country in a mess...and hopefully he won't leave it in a mess....time will tell.

Clinton's $300 Billion surplus was something to brag about, but the debt was $5 Trillion after Clinton, $10 Trillion after Bush and will be $20 Trillion after Obama. It doesn't look good that Obama and the dems refuse to cut spending, address the entitlements and continue say that spending isn't the problem.
 
And Bush didn't have the media thinking he was the messiah. Imagine Obama's numbers would be if the press wasn't covering for him
 
I agree - I was referring more to the negative impact on employment and the one year waiver on the employer mandate is not helping, simply causing continued resistance against new hires.


The whole idea of putting the cost of health care on the backs of employers is a bad idea. The system you Canadians have may not be perfect, either, but it is less expensive than what we have and doesn't require employers to provide health coverage.
 
Back
Top Bottom