TheWraith
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 10:03 PM
Original message |
How can a president with only a 42% approval rating govern and win reelection? |
|
In a Gallup poll conducted December 16th through the 18th, the President had a 42% approval rating, 53% disapproval, and 5% said no opinion. This certainly means that the president is a lame duck, and going to be defeated when he runs for a second term.
Except that that Gallup poll was conducted December 16th through the 18th, 1994, and the President involved was Bill Clinton.
|
FrenchieCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 10:08 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Notice all of the "concern"......trolling around?
|
tridim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. It's off the charts tonight. |
|
I've never seen DU this bad. I almost don't want to come back tomorrow, mods.
|
TheWraith
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
14. That's pretty much what I said to Skinner in the ATA forum earlier today. |
|
I took a week off from DU, and I didn't miss the infighting.
|
patrice
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
17. I've been spending less time here. It's interesting to come back and see how certain |
|
, shall we say, authoritarian, traits are developing.
|
Hawkowl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
Come back when you are up for a reality check.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #21 |
|
It likes watching a wreck except nobody gets hurt and you're not struck in traffic for hours.
|
msongs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 10:08 PM
Response to Original message |
2. AND there were three candidates so he won with less than 50% nt |
GOPBasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
31. Clinton got 49% with Perot in the race; he certainly would have broken 50% w/o Perot. n/t |
AtomicKitten
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #31 |
46. Never mind; I thought you were talking about 1992. |
Davis_X_Machina
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 10:13 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Why, by sheer force of will, the same way he can... |
|
...make Senate super-majorities materialize. And it's not just Obama.
I, for example, don't know anyone who voted for Reagan, yet he won, twice.
It's one of the powers that comes with the office.
|
laugle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 10:13 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Ross Perot effect; otherwise he would have lost.
|
OhioBlue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
10. He won with 379 electoral votes to 159 |
|
Do you really think Perot was enough of a factor to swing enough states to give it to Dole?
Just asking... I didn't follow politics very closely then.
|
unblock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
11. given that clinton got more votes than dole AND perot COMBINED, i'm don't agree. |
Capn Sunshine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
The United We Stand people drew as much from the Democrats as it did the republicans around here. I know because a great many of them were attcted to the Howard Dean Campaign later. From our experience in the Dean campaign, this was a nationwide condition. They were evenly divided in their Party loyalties.
This meme about Clinton just won't die. It was designed by Rove to undermine the perception of the Democratic Party's appeal in the 90's.
|
rufus dog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
16. every study I saw backs your claim |
|
That is, neither Clinton nor Dole gained an advantage from the Perot votes.
|
StevieM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
23. Most polling I saw showed Perot taking more votes from Clinton than from Dole. At least that's the |
|
case in the run-up to the election. I can't remember exactly what the exit polls said, but I seem to remember that Perot took more from Clinton on Election Day too.
In 1992 exit polls showed Perot took equally from both candidates. At best you could argue that he cost Bush Sr. Montana and Georgia, and widened the electoral vote margin. And it was only on Election Day that you could finally say that much--throughout the campaign he consistently took more from Clinton than from Dole, and all speculation was about whether he could cost Clinton the election.
Once the election was over, Bob Dole and Haley Barbour (RNC chair at the time) got together and started promoting the lie that Perot cost Bush the election. It's a lie that has stuck to this day, even believed by many Clinton supporters. But it was never based in actual fact or evidence.
|
Hippo_Tron
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
24. Perot's voters would have had to vote nearly 100% for Dole to make the difference |
|
And I don't mean just that none of them would have had to go to Clinton. I mean that nearly 100% would have had to show up at the polls and vote for Dole. Clinton won very very close to 50% of the vote in a three way race in 1996 and won a majority or close to it in more than enough states to seal the electoral college regardless of Perot. There is zero evidence that Perot would have swung the election to Clinton in 1996 and the evidence in the 1992 case is severely lacking as well.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 05:27 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
26. Beware Of Democrats Making Republican Talking Points |
niceypoo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #26 |
40. Change is the new 'pony' |
girl gone mad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 10:15 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Better start praying for a new economic bubble.. |
|
as hard as you possibly can, because I don't see anything on the horizon. While you're at it, might as well pray Republicans nominate someone as dopey as Bob Dole again, too.
|
TheWraith
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. Well, they're probably going to nominate Palin. |
|
Who makes Dole look like fucking John F. Kennedy.
|
niceypoo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
41. The next bubble will be our last |
|
The economy can't take anymore supply side.
|
Exilednight
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 10:25 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Republicans shot themselves in the foot in 1996. They ran Bob Dole .............. |
|
who is quite possibly the most bland man on the planet.
Let's also be honest about this, if Perot did not run in 1992, Bush Sr. would of had a second term. There were 11 states where Clinton won by less than 5% of the vote and another eight that Clinton won by less than 10%. Perot pulled down 19 million, or 18.5%, of all votes out of a grand total of nearly 104 million.
Clinton took in 44 million votes; Bush took in 39 million votes; Perot took in 19 million votes (all numbers rounded down).
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
30. Then Why Did Clinton Maintain A Constant Lead Over Bush Even When Perot Dropped Out Of The Race |
|
He dropped out of the race during the Summer because he said the Repubs were sending plants to disrupt his daughter's wedding and then got back in the Fall...
He was one crazy but smart bastard...
|
Exilednight
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #30 |
34. Many polling firms will still polling it as a three way race, and those that ............ |
|
polled it as a two way race between Clinton and Bush saw huge upswings in undecideds.
|
eridani
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 10:29 PM
Response to Original message |
9. By triangulation and fucking over the people who worked to elect him n/t |
dkf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 10:39 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Get unemployment down to 8% and growth above 3% or thereabouts and things will get better. |
|
I hate spending all that money but it's the only thing that saves the Presidency.
|
Hawkowl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
22. Raise taxes to achieve that goal |
|
Edited on Tue Dec-14-10 12:39 AM by Hawkowl
Raise taxes on the rich and on corporations' cash hoarding. Then directly give that money to small businesses and the lower income people. THAT is the only way unemployment is going below 8%. It would also be helpful to pass a Wall Street brokers transactions tax. Just a penny or two for every stock, commodities, and derivatives transactions. This would prevent a lot of speculation and raise a lot of money.
Gotta take the money away from the rich who are deliberately sitting on it.
|
dkf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #22 |
28. Lower income people probably are closer to zero in Federal taxes. |
|
Tax credits only come at tax time. Unless you want to reduce the payroll tax which most here seem to hate.
|
Hawkowl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
|
I mean GIVE them money in the form of traditional rent, food, healthcare, and education subsidies. Programs such as Section 8 housing, food stamps, medicaid, and Pell Grants. Simply double or triple or quadruple the amounts of these programs. It would all add up to way less than a few months in Afghanistan and really goose the economy. If Obama could do this immediately he could really get at least a short-medium term boost to the economy that would secure his re-election.
That is DEMOCRATIC strategy. Tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, free trade agreements--those are failed Republican ideas that Obama insists on pursuing. Thus, it becomes hard for the electorate to distinguish Obama from a Republican, and worse, these policies have been proven to fail.
|
Clio the Leo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 10:46 PM
Response to Original message |
13. And Reagan's were similar I believe. nt |
JoePhilly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
35. Correct .... around the middle of his 1st term he was at about 35% approval for a while. nt |
GoCubsGo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #35 |
|
Here's a thread from DU with the ratings for his entire presidency: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8512945He was in the mid-30's at this same point, and during a recession. Yet, he was re-elected quite handily.
|
frazzled
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 11:45 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Mon Dec-13-10 11:46 PM by frazzled
|
Union Scribe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-13-10 11:47 PM
Response to Original message |
19. Your twist wasn't very twisty |
|
Since, ya know, it isn't the 16th yet. An interesting historical tidbit nonetheless.
|
polmaven
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #19 |
|
We're still a whole day an 1/2 away from that....Golly! How can comparisions possibly be made with that large a time difference???? :shrug:
|
ProudDad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 12:32 AM
Response to Original message |
20. If the Corpos put their money on it... |
|
Edited on Tue Dec-14-10 12:34 AM by ProudDad
Yes...
|
Life Long Dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 03:25 AM
Response to Original message |
25. Back in June of 2004 Bush had a 42% approval rating. |
vaberella
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 05:32 AM
Response to Original message |
27. It's impossible...so I suggest we dump the guy. No point in talking about it. n/t |
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 08:23 AM
Response to Original message |
32. Clinton Won Because Unemployment Was 5.5% And GDP Growth Was 4.0% |
|
If the economy was in the crapper Dole would have been 43. That's why it's imperative to show real economic progress...
|
sweetapogee
(449 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #32 |
|
I don't know what the magic unemployment number is, if 8% next year will do it or if it's needs to be 7% but at this time the economy needs to stop moving in the opposite direction. The President had the good fortune to have the census workers help with employment figures, something he will not have in 2 years from now.
But you are correct my friend, the economy; unemployment and GDP will determine the fate of the President.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #36 |
47. People Have A Fetish For Numbers Like Dow 10,000 |
|
I really think he needs to get unemployment under eight percent.
|
sweetapogee
(449 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #47 |
|
I agree, as in close to 7%
|
Wednesdays
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 08:28 AM
Response to Original message |
33. How? By getting above 50%, I suppose. |
|
:shrug:
Or something like that...
|
niceypoo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 10:12 AM
Response to Original message |
37. Defecting to those who hate your guts |
|
While crapping on those who voted you into office is not a very coherant strategy
|
slackmaster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 10:29 AM
Response to Original message |
38. It depends largely on who runs against him |
Phx_Dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 10:36 AM
Response to Original message |
39. I didn't realize there was an election next month or anytime soon. |
Proud Liberal Dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 11:09 AM
Response to Original message |
43. Right now Obama is "running" against himself |
|
Edited on Tue Dec-14-10 11:10 AM by Proud Liberal Dem
When compared to the lunatic the Republicans will have to nominate in 2012 in order to appease the teabaggers, I predict he will be looked at MUCH more favorably, even among currently disaffected progressives. Plus, we have yet to see the kind of lunacy that the Republican Tea Party will unleash during the next two years- that will make President Obama and the Democrats look MUCH better and more reasonable by 2012- much like how Newt and his "GOPAC Zombies" helped rehab Clinton in time for 1996.
If anybody is still worried about our chances in 2012, just let me ask this: What are the odds that the teabaggers will demonstrate that they and their policies are what Americans truly want and do good (maybe even great) things for our country during the next two years? :shrug: :rofl:
If Americans REALLY want more teabaggers in government and more teabagger policies for our country (something that is NOT currently indicated by polling data), then, yeah, we're all pretty well screwed for 2012 (and beyond). The odds are better, however, IMHO that the teabaggers will ultimately drown in their own bitter tea (and the Republican Party with them- hopefully).
|
zulchzulu
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 11:27 AM
Response to Original message |
45. A poll two years away from the election is at least a couple infinities away |
|
It's political crack to take ANY poll seriously this far away from the election.
|
Fire1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 11:32 AM
Response to Original message |
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 11:43 AM
Response to Original message |
49. Yep. And anything can happen in two years. |
|
Even if things are bad economically, we've got the don't change horses in midstream argument. The Rs used it in 2004. We can use it too.
To the apolitical center independent, Obama is "the President" and they'll vote for him without thinking. The Rs have nobody who is as inspiring.
|
sweetapogee
(449 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #49 |
|
I hope you are right but I have to admit that your strategy is a little on the thin side.
|
CakeGrrl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 12:23 PM
Response to Original message |
50. It's laughable that people are waving the doomsday polls around as if |
|
the election will be held next month.
Nuts.
|
Freddie Stubbs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 02:01 PM
Response to Original message |
53. The unemployment rate in October 2012 will likley be a more important number |
golfguru
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #53 |
55. Always! The TREND in employment in October is a better indicator. |
whistler162
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-14-10 05:24 PM
Response to Original message |
56. I was wondering if it was from 1946! |
Freddie Stubbs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-15-10 09:22 AM
Response to Original message |
57. Will Obama triangulate as much at Clinton did? |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 17th 2024, 10:25 PM
Response to Original message |