Obama's Usama bounce over

[bradley]

Fuck both Parties. They're both Hamiltonian/Wilsonian to the core.

Yeah, big banks and corporations own both parties. Most Americans haven't a clue about Hamilton and Wilson, much less why some of their policies have remained so detrimental to our Republic and overall sovereignty. Nor do they know the fundamental distinctions between a republic and a democracy, inalienable vs. unalienable etc.

However, voters actually have become extremely political (and polarized) creatures and therefore fairly easily disarmed and led into perpetual war.

 

[classy]

According to your links, the gallop polls don't show much of change at all. Those graphs show little or no bounce ever occured.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

The "bounce" will be the points Obama doesn't lose from the "leading from behind, weak on defense, is a secret Muslim terrorist sympathizer" campaign attacks the GOP spin machine can't use now.

 

[werepossum]

According to your links, the gallop polls don't show much of change at all. Those graphs show little or no bounce ever occured.

He went from 42% to 52% approval, which seems about right to me. He's already back down to 46% and dropping.

The strange thing to me is that nothing's really happened to force flat the bounce. It just had no legs, and considering that Bin Laden was the guiding force behind al Qaeda in general and 9/11 in particular, and that we've been after him for literally a decade, it just seems strange to me that the bounce didn't last longer. I mean, I'm pretty anti-Obama - I support him in Libya because he's my President rather than because I'm in any fashion an Obama and/or Democrat fanboi - and he's got my approval right now. How many people can be swayed by his getting Usama and yet get over it more quickly than me?

Well, we actually know that - it's 6% - but you get my point.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

How many people can be swayed by his getting Usama and yet get over it more quickly than me?

Welcome to the left of the conservative mainstream. It's getting quite crowded over here.

 

[First]

He went from 42% to 52% approval, which seems about right to me. He's already back down to 46% and dropping.

The strange thing to me is that nothing's really happened to force flat the bounce. It just had no legs, and considering that Bin Laden was the guiding force behind al Qaeda in general and 9/11 in particular, and that we've been after him for literally a decade, it just seems strange to me that the bounce didn't last longer. I mean, I'm pretty anti-Obama - I support him in Libya because he's my President rather than because I'm in any fashion an Obama and/or Democrat fanboi - and he's got my approval right now. How many people can be swayed by his getting Usama and yet get over it more quickly than me?

Well, we actually know that - it's 6% - but you get my point.

Your point is bupkis, since he's now at 48%. It fluctuates day to day and it's also, of course, a single poll. The aggregate of polls is all that matters, and Obama clearly has gotten a tiny bump from Bin Laden's death based on that information. Just deal with it and move on.

 

[Red Dawn]

You don't know anyone who thought his bounce would last? Do a search on "Obama just won the 2012 election" and you will get a list of folks who thought it would last.

Bounce or not with the Clowns the Republicans are promoting for their nomination it won't matter. Hell even the Republicans are disgusted wtih their prosepctive candidates

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/17/gov-nikki-haley-hammers-gingrich-over-medicare-remarks/

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/17/borger.gingrich.medicare/index.html

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/17/gingrich-under-fire-from-republicans-over-comments/

 

[OrByte]

I don't think you understand what people meant by that. A 'bounce' in politics usually means a pretty significant uptick in polls, I would say at least 4-5 points. What people were arguing when they say Obama can't lose in 2012 was not that he would ride some tide of popularity from here on out, but that he would pick up a couple of percentage points that he might not have otherwise, and in presidential politics a few percentage points is a huge advantage.

Obama was already going to be hard to beat in 2012, and if you spot him a few points extra things start looking really bad.

The percentages involved with "swinging" the popular vote are small but super important. There is no need for a popular tidal wave of support.

I agree with eskimospy. Also, you can't place a value on the fact that the GOP, for the Presidential election of 2012, can NOT claim Obama will be soft on terror and terror sponsoring countries.

The GOP lost almost half of the election playbook when Obama got OBL.

 

[OrByte]

The "bounce" will be the points Obama doesn't lose from the "leading from behind, weak on defense, is a secret Muslim terrorist sympathizer" campaign attacks the GOP spin machine can't use now.

bingo, beat me to it

 

[Craig234]

The percentages involved with "swinging" the popular vote are small but super important. There is no need for a popular tidal wave of support.

I agree with eskimospy. Also, you can't place a value on the fact that the GOP, for the Presidential election of 2012, can NOT claim Obama will be soft on terror and terror sponsoring countries.

The GOP lost almost half of the election playbook when Obama got OBL.

One issue is, though, that Obama is going to face corporate funding like never before.

Even if the right loses, history shows that the most trivial of issues can have big influences on elections, used in powerful marketing campaigns (and media collusion).

Remember how the guy who had the best bit of political credit in years - Al Gore's role in leading the funding for creation of the internet - was turned into a negative for him.

The GOP may have lost some lines of attack against the terrorist loving commie Kenyan, but the money spent attacking him for *anything* might matter more.

IMO, Obama has a good chance to win - with a big wildcard being the economy that Republicans seem bent on making as bad as possible to help them win the presidency - because of the advantages of incumbency and how bad the Republicans are as well as some nice wins like the auto industry bailout over the Republicans' objection and defending Medicare - but these big budget ad campaigns can outweigh the facts.

For example, remember right-wingers arguing for how the first Bush 'deserved' to beat Clinton because of his war record over Clinton's 'draft dodging' - and yet reversed themselves to turn John Kerry's war record into a negative for him (swift boat liars) compared to draft-dodging George W. Bush.

It's a bit ironic that IMO the killing of bin Laden shouldn't be a big campaign issue for anyone who did it, but it actually helps Obama counter some of the marketing.

What idiocy we have when our election campaigns are swayed by things from insane slogans ('he pals around with terrorists') to a mission that has little to do with his real qualifications for running foreign policy. The lesson being taught here seems to be to tell every president to make sure they find an enemy they can use for building support, that they can kill a bit before the election. Worked for Bush with Saddam, too.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

('he pals around with terrorists')

He may not pal around with terrorists, but he does drop in for unexpected visits.

 

[sportage]

Im sorry for the op. It doesn't really matter, does it? Really?...
Obama's going to be easily re elected. Thats all there is to it.
No republican can challenge him. No republican is going to be trusted
to "fix" the economy. No magic solution. No magic wand.
Republican solutions, when you find one with one, is always some extreme
far-out idea that not even other republicans can get behind, let alone the average voter.
The best relief I can offer for your pain it so find a picture of the one
republican you'd like to see beat obama, cut out that picture, tape it over your
tv screen for the next 5 years, and pretend.
Kinda like your doing now...

 

[dullard]

On a realated note, RCP gives Obama his highest average rating since November 2009. That comes from a bounce on May 2nd after Usama was killed and that bounce has lasted. And the Gallup poll in the OP has risen again.

When will people in P&N realize that posting the result from one poll and pretending that is a trend just makes you look silly. It happened with the Bush haters, it happens with the Obama haters.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Awesome! We can now guarantee that Palin will be in the White House in 2012!!

IRAN,... HERE COMES AH-MER-IKA!!!!

YYYEEEEEEEE-HHHHAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW!!!

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

when the fuck did he do that?

:hmm:

In pokerguys dreams of course, which is where he gets all of his "facts".

 

[woolfe9999]

He may not pal around with terrorists, but he does drop in for unexpected visits.

Damn that's good. Get on the line with David Axelrod. They should use that in 2012.

 

[werepossum]

On a realated note, RCP gives Obama his highest average rating since November 2009. That comes from a bounce on May 2nd after Usama was killed and that bounce has lasted. And the Gallup poll in the OP has risen again.

When will people in P&N realize that posting the result from one poll and pretending that is a trend just makes you look silly. It happened with the Bush haters, it happens with the Obama haters.

When I posted that, it was after three dropping Gallup poles.

This actually makes more sense, but I notice that the Associated Press pole (60% approval, a whopping 21% bounce) is still skewing the figures up. Still, 52% approval seems to me to be about right.

EDIT: Just to be clear, Obama is actually on my good list for the moment. I put a lot of stock in his taking the chances to get UBL, and he hasn't done anything since to really piss me off, so for the moment I approve of his job performance.

 

[dullard]

This actually makes more sense, but I notice that the Associated Press pole (60% approval, a whopping 21% bounce) is still skewing the figures up. Still, 52% approval seems to me to be about right.

From the RCP link, click "See All President Obama Job Approval Polling Data". The ones in grey are the latest and are included. The ones in white are not included. Thus the +20% CBS poll and the +18% Washington Post poll are not included. Including one whopping bounce poll and excluding two doesn't seem to biased at the moment.

I happen to look at the change in many polls rather than just one specific poll. Here are the latest ones with data in April to compare to:

Gallup: +6% now, +1% just before, -8% mid April.
Rasmussen: -1% now, tie just before, -7% mid April.
Fox: +14% now, tie just before, +2% early April.
Reuters: +2% now, -3% early April.

In all cases, there is a difference betwen now and in mid/early April. There is a definite bounce. It might not last more than a month or two. But I think your OP was just a bit premature.

Personally, as a left leaning libertarian, I'd give him 75% thumbs up, 25% thumbs down. I've said it many times before though, to really be a good president he'll have to fix medicare / medicaid / SS / rampant military spending. His 25% thumbs down are for not tackling those issues yet. But, he is only 1/4 though his 8 years.

 

[werepossum]

From the RCP link, click "See All President Obama Job Approval Polling Data". The ones in grey are the latest and are included. The ones in white are not included. Thus the +20% CBS poll and the +18% Washington Post poll are not included. Including one whopping bounce poll and excluding two doesn't seem to biased at the moment.

I happen to look at the change in many polls rather than just one specific poll. Here are the latest ones with data in April to compare to:

Gallup: +6% now, +1% just before, -8% mid April.
Rasmussen: -1% now, tie just before, -7% mid April.
Fox: +14% now, tie just before, +2% early April.
Reuters: +2% now, -3% early April.

In all cases, there is a difference betwen now and in mid/early April. There is a definite bounce. It might not last more than a month or two. But I think your OP was just a bit premature.

Personally, as a left leaning libertarian, I'd give him 75% thumbs up, 25% thumbs down.

Yes, it obviously was.

 

[Thump553]

He went from 42% to 52% approval, which seems about right to me. He's already back down to 46% and dropping.

The strange thing to me is that nothing's really happened to force flat the bounce. It just had no legs, and considering that Bin Laden was the guiding force behind al Qaeda in general and 9/11 in particular, and that we've been after him for literally a decade, it just seems strange to me that the bounce didn't last longer. I mean, I'm pretty anti-Obama - I support him in Libya because he's my President rather than because I'm in any fashion an Obama and/or Democrat fanboi - and he's got my approval right now. How many people can be swayed by his getting Usama and yet get over it more quickly than me?

Well, we actually know that - it's 6% - but you get my point.

Refresh my recollection, but I think the last real event-based bounce was GWB after 9/11. I think the 24/7 news cycle, as compounded by the internet, has reduced our nation's attention span to that of a flea and such bounces are probably pretty much a thing of the past.

 

[werepossum]

Refresh my recollection, but I think the last real event-based bounce was GWB after 9/11. I think the 24/7 news cycle, as compounded by the internet, has reduced our nation's attention span to that of a flea and such bounces are probably pretty much a thing of the past.

Sadly that's probably true. Ironic that a President's approval rating is affected more by things over which he has little or no control than by things over which he has direct control.

More moronic than ironic, actually.

 

[zinfamous]

He may not pal around with terrorists, but he does drop in for unexpected visits.

Damn that's good. Get on the line with David Axelrod. They should use that in 2012.

lol indeed.

would make a good t-shirt/bumper sticker.