• 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

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.

The Billions in corporate welfare that the republicans refuse to cut is much more of a problem to the economy than things like medicare and social security which are always what the Republicans want to cut first.
 
Cut the tax breaks for oil companies and you'll get $4 billion. Unfunded liabilities for the entitlements is $125 Trillion. Yet when they offer honest reforms like Simpson Bowles or the Ryan plan, Obama uses it to say Reps want to throw granny off the cliff. (had you convinced). Reps want to SAVE seniors from the automatic cuts coming. Common sense reform is necessary, not the $716 Billion in cuts to Medicare Obama has made to pay for expanding medicaid in obamacare. That WILL be reversed!! He's losing the youth vote AND the senior vote!
 
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.

It's why many companies set up shop here, although in most large companies they do provide supplementary health insurance to cover the ever growing delisting of UHC services and products covered. I believe you'll get there in my lifetime. The ACA will so destroy the private insurance market that most of the small players will leave the primary health insurance field and settle on the supplemental coverage, similar to here in Canada - they're mostly all the same big multinational companies anyway. It may be gradual, but government will have to more and more fill the void.
 
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.

Health care costs went up as soon as a middleman came between the doctor and patient. Health Care Insurance was a scam the governments supported by not allowing competition between states, as well as reforming tort laws. Lobbyists had to play a large role in this, and because most politicians are lawyers the lobbyists were often the politicians themselves.

Obamacare will make things even worse, a 'reform' headed in an entirely wrong direction.
 
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.
Yes, it\s easy enough to balance a budget if you're borrowing money from outside sources. No problem then with a 'surplus' as well,
 
The Billions in corporate welfare that the republicans refuse to cut is much more of a problem to the economy than things like medicare and social security which are always what the Republicans want to cut first.

What?? Wasn't it Obama who got the government involved in Solyndra, as well as more billions gone to shady contractors in his 'stimulus' plan? And isn't it the dems who are actually cutting medicare?
 
It's why many companies set up shop here, although in most large companies they do provide supplementary health insurance to cover the ever growing delisting of UHC services and products covered. I believe you'll get there in my lifetime. The ACA will so destroy the private insurance market that most of the small players will leave the primary health insurance field and settle on the supplemental coverage, similar to here in Canada - they're mostly all the same big multinational companies anyway. It may be gradual, but government will have to more and more fill the void.

Canada looks good as a place to invest, changing the trend that had been going on for decades.Alberta and Saskatchewan lead North America in economic freedom, according to new Fraser Institute report | National Post
 
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.

Two points is meaningless as it falls well within the margin of error and as more people get screwed with obamacare his numbers will continue to plummet.
 
Two points is meaningless as it falls well within the margin of error and as more people get screwed with obamacare his numbers will continue to plummet.

Perhaps, but what I used was the RCP numbers which averages polls. If you hadn't caught the trend going on over the last week or two it seems the Democrats have bottomed out and slowly they are starting to climb. Today Obama is up to 42% from 39%. But also look at the Generic Congressional polling results, on 1 November the Democrats were up by 8 points, a little over a week ago the Republicans had taken a 2 point lead, today the Democrats have regained the lead by a single point. RCP averages 6 polls in the congressional

So the game and the ride goes on.
 
The headline spins it just a bit, Obama's numbers are actually a bit worse even.

The headline doesn't "spin" anything; the difference in the numbers is well within the margin of error.
 
The headline doesn't "spin" anything; the difference in the numbers is well within the margin of error.

"Margin of error"? Really? hahahaha....That is rich....:lamo Look, the bottom line....At identical times in their second terms...Obama - 43, Bush - 47....How's that feel?
 
"Margin of error"? Really? hahahaha....That is rich....:lamo Look, the bottom line....At identical times in their second terms...Obama - 43, Bush - 47....How's that feel?

In fact, Bush comes out one point ahead, 40 percent to 39 percent,

This from the first line of the quote in the original post. Do you have any clue how scientific polling works, or what a margin of error even is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

The margin of error is a statistic expressing the amount of random sampling error in a survey's results. The larger the margin of error, the less confidence one should have that the poll's reported results are close to the "true" figures; that is, the figures for the whole population. Margin of error occurs whenever a population is incompletely sampled.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Gallup tracks daily the percentage of Americans who approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president. Daily results are based on telephone interviews with approximately 1,500 national adults; Margin of error is ±3 percentage points.

Learn something.
 
This from the first line of the quote in the original post. Do you have any clue how scientific polling works, or what a margin of error even is?

Margin of error - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval



Learn something.

I know that your guy is pathetic, and now you are hung with being in the same boat as the people you mocked for approval ratings, difference is that you don't have the honor to just admit that your guy is sucking up the place.

And I don't need to learn anything from you. I'd need a shower after.
 
I know that your guy is pathetic, and now you are hung with being in the same boat as the people you mocked for approval ratings, difference is that you don't have the honor to just admit that your guy is sucking up the place.

And I don't need to learn anything from you. I'd need a shower after.

In other words, the answer to my question is no. Thanks for playing.

You could stand to learn something from someone if you don't know what a margin of error is regarding scientific polling.
 
In other words, the answer to my question is no. Thanks for playing.

You could stand to learn something from someone if you don't know what a margin of error is regarding scientific polling.

That's cute, you want to rely on margin of error to imply that Obama is doing better than he is....Hell Kobie, I always knew you were in the tank, just not to the level of utter denial. Consider, the Business insider article, certainly not a "right wing'' publication wrote this...

"President Barack Obama is ending his fifth year in office with the lowest approval ratings at this point in the presidency since President Richard Nixon, according to a new Washington Post/ABC poll released Tuesday.
Obama's approval rating in the poll stands at 43%. By comparison, President George W. Bush had a 47% approval rating at the end of the fifth year of his presidency. And all other Post-World War II presidents had approval ratings above 50% — with the exception of Nixon, who, amid the Watergate scandal, had a dreadful 29% approval rating."



Read more: Obama Approval Rating At Nixon Levels - Business Insider


Worst since Nixon in post WWII presidents....Obama suffers a lack of credibility, and supporters like you whom think that going down with the ship is noble, but in the end look foolish, suffer the same...Your defense of the liar is pathetic.
 
That's cute, you want to rely on margin of error to imply that Obama is doing better than he is....Hell Kobie, I always knew you were in the tank, just not to the level of utter denial. Consider, the Business insider article, certainly not a "right wing'' publication wrote this...

"President Barack Obama is ending his fifth year in office with the lowest approval ratings at this point in the presidency since President Richard Nixon, according to a new Washington Post/ABC poll released Tuesday.
Obama's approval rating in the poll stands at 43%. By comparison, President George W. Bush had a 47% approval rating at the end of the fifth year of his presidency. And all other Post-World War II presidents had approval ratings above 50% — with the exception of Nixon, who, amid the Watergate scandal, had a dreadful 29% approval rating."



Read more: Obama Approval Rating At Nixon Levels - Business Insider


Worst since Nixon in post WWII presidents....Obama suffers a lack of credibility, and supporters like you whom think that going down with the ship is noble, but in the end look foolish, suffer the same...Your defense of the liar is pathetic.

You are really taking my comments horribly out of context. I never once defended ANYONE. Sawyer said the headline was "spinning things," I disagreed and pointed out why, and you went off the deep end and am claiming I'm somehow defending Obama. How you got a "defense of Obama" out of anything I've posted in this thread is beyond me.

And Lizzie, I thought you were better than that to "like" a post that is completely irrelevant to anything I actually posted.
 
Yeah right, where would we be if Romney was elected? The same damned place we're at now.

And you know that for a fact, huh? Do you believe he would have made Romneycare national? Ignored Benghazi? Bribed the electorate with food stamps?
 
You are really taking my comments horribly out of context. I never once defended ANYONE. Sawyer said the headline was "spinning things," I disagreed and pointed out why, and you went off the deep end and am claiming I'm somehow defending Obama. How you got a "defense of Obama" out of anything I've posted in this thread is beyond me.

And Lizzie, I thought you were better than that to "like" a post that is completely irrelevant to anything I actually posted.

You might have done better had you not posted this 'margin of error' silliness.
 
You might have done better had you not posted this 'margin of error' silliness.

"Margin of error" -- an actual thing, yanno, when it comes to scientific polling -- is now "silliness"? When the only reason it was mentioned was to debunk sawyer's claim that the headline was "spinning"?

The intellectual dishonesty of the Obama Derangement Syndrome sufferers knows no bounds.
 
"Margin of error" -- an actual thing, yanno, when it comes to scientific polling -- is now "silliness"? When the only reason it was mentioned was to debunk sawyer's claim that the headline was "spinning"?

The intellectual dishonesty of the Obama Derangement Syndrome sufferers knows no bounds.

Yes, we all know about the 'margin of error in polls, which wasn't the point.

Yes, ODS is to blame for all his, and the country's, misfortunes. Of course that might also be a margin of error.
 
Yes, we all know about the 'margin of error in polls, which wasn't the point.

Yes, ODS is to blame for all his, and the country's, misfortunes.
Of course that might also be a margin of error.

Because that's what I said. :roll:

Straw-man3.jpg

Apparently we all DON'T know about MoE, since j-mac made it pretty clear he didn't.
 
Health care costs went up as soon as a middleman came between the doctor and patient. Health Care Insurance was a scam the governments supported by not allowing competition between states, as well as reforming tort laws. Lobbyists had to play a large role in this, and because most politicians are lawyers the lobbyists were often the politicians themselves.

Obamacare will make things even worse, a 'reform' headed in an entirely wrong direction.

Partly correct:
Health care costs do go up when a middleman comes between the patient and the doctor, particularly when the patient doesn't care, doesn't even know in most cases, what the costs are. On the other hand, no one should face the decision of needed treatment or bankruptcy. The problem is, insurance needs to be just that, and not a pre paid health care plan.

Not allowing competition between the states is a talking point. There has always been competition between the states, but the seller has to conform to the regulations in the state where they are selling, not just in the state where their offices are.

Lobbyists do indeed play a role. No one can go against the wishes of the insurance industry.

Obamacare might make things worse. It is too early to tell just yet.
 
Back
Top Bottom