Washington Times digging deep

[jonks]

First, Gallup's take:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118...proval-Broad-Deep.aspx

"Obama's weekly job approval ratings in the Gallup Poll have been running at 61% or better since he took office, and register 65% at the conclusion of his first 100 days. According to a recent Gallup review of the average first-quarter approval ratings of all elected presidents since Dwight Eisenhower in 1953, Obama's mid-60s approval level is solidly positive, although not extraordinary in historical terms."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117...val-First-Quarter.aspx

"Obama's 63% first-quarter average matches the historical average of 63% for elected presidents' first quarters since 1953. However, it is the fourth highest for a newly elected president since that time, and the highest since Jimmy Carter's 69% in 1977.

President Obama is off to a solid start as president, as far as his job approval ratings are concerned. His 63% first-quarter average is the better than the averages of each of his four predecessors, and the fourth best since 1953."

So what are we seeing? Solid approval ratings, but nothing spectacular historically. Not that suprising given the economic situation and his budget's result on the deficit. But he's maintained a low-mid 60something rating since elected.

Naturally that means America hates him.

http://washingtontimes.com/new...racks-in-the-basement/
Barack's in the basement

"The explanation for Mr. Obama's low approval is that he ran as a moderate but has governed from the far left."


Yep, focus on a few select historical numbers to spin an approval of over 60% into "the basement." It has got to be really hard for these guys to print this stuff and not laugh themselves silly when people read it and nod along saying "I knew it!"

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: jonks

http://washingtontimes.com/new...racks-in-the-basement/
Barack's in the basement

"The explanation for Mr. Obama's low approval is that he ran as a moderate but has governed from the far left."


Yep, focus on a few select historical numbers to spin an approval of over 60% into "the basement." It has got to be really hard for these guys to print this stuff and not laugh themselves silly when people read it and nod along saying "I knew it!"

Like the other pieces stated... it's nothing surprisingly high, and nother surprisingly low.

His disapproval rating, as we could probably expect, is significantly higher than historical averages I believe.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I'm actually calling for Obama to resign.

 

[dphantom]

Amazing what you can do with statistics. Make them lie to fit whatever you want.

You are using a 100 day average.

The Times is using what it is today.

2 different things.

 

[Robor]

Now that's quality reporting. :roll:

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I'm actually calling for Obama to resign.

Good luck with that. In fact, I say you go demand it. Go straight to the White House and tell them you demand to see the president OR ELSE!

 

[OCGuy]

You are quoting the opinion sections of the editorial that you posted.

If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....


"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"


The bolded parts have to be true or false.


Which is it?

 

[spittledip]

I don't agree with their take on his approval rating, but I find this quote to be true:

The explanation for Mr. Obama's low approval is that he ran as a moderate but has governed from the far left.

Does this sound accurate to others?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: spittledip
I don't agree with their take on his approval rating, but I find this quote to be true:

The explanation for Mr. Obama's low approval is that he ran as a moderate but has governed from the far left.

Does this sound accurate to others?

In what way? What liberal things has he done that he didn't campaign on?

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: OCguy
You are quoting the opinion sections of the editorial that you posted.

If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....


"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"


The bolded parts have to be true or false.


Which is it?

Liberals don't deal with facts. They deal with what they feel! They will not address the factual data. Instead, they will go off on personal attacks, insults and all sorts of red herrings. Anything to avoid actually addressing the facts.

As the FACTS show, despite what liberals and their media overlords state, Obama's approval ratings are...average at best. In fact, his disapproval ratings are historic highs.

But no, here comes the flame train...choo choo!

:roll:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: OCguy
You are quoting the opinion sections of the editorial that you posted.

If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....


"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"


The bolded parts have to be true or false.


Which is it?

Liberals don't deal with facts. They deal with what they feel! They will not address the factual data. Instead, they will go off on personal attacks, insults and all sorts of red herrings.

Kind of like what you are doing in this thread and forum

 

[nageov3t]

why are you reading the Washington Times? it's worse than the NY Post.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: OCguy
You are quoting the opinion sections of the editorial that you posted.

If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....


"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"


The bolded parts have to be true or false.


Which is it?

Liberals don't deal with facts. They deal with what they feel! They will not address the factual data. Instead, they will go off on personal attacks, insults and all sorts of red herrings. Anything to avoid actually addressing the facts.

As the FACTS show, despite what liberals and their media overlords state, Obama's approval ratings are...average at best. In fact, his disapproval ratings are historic highs.

But no, here comes the flame train...choo choo!

:roll:

Awww, look at the cute little neocon posting.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: OCguy
You are quoting the opinion sections of the editorial that you posted.

If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....


"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"


The bolded parts have to be true or false.


Which is it?

Liberals don't deal with facts. They deal with what they feel! They will not address the factual data. Instead, they will go off on personal attacks, insults and all sorts of red herrings.

Kind of like what you are doing in this thread and forum

Red...why don't you address the facts and prove him wrong?

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: OCguy
You are quoting the opinion sections of the editorial that you posted.

If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....


"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"


The bolded parts have to be true or false.


Which is it?

Liberals don't deal with facts. They deal with what they feel! They will not address the factual data. Instead, they will go off on personal attacks, insults and all sorts of red herrings.

Kind of like what you are doing in this thread and forum

Case in point. I've seen your posts, Red Dawn. No surprise that you would use your mod powers to issue warnings against someone who doesn't agree with what you believe. I called some folks liberal, which they also claim to be. Oh noes!

Any warnings for those folks who have in fact actually insulted and attacked other posters using profanity, slurs, etc.? IE, the many, MANY insulting and personal attacks against conservatives on this board?

I think not. I rest my case. When the mods of a forum definitely slant a certain way, it is time to abandon that forum.

--------------------------

When Red Dawn or any other mod is posting on their personal account, you cannot bring their mod status into any argument. Furthermore, you cannot make direct accusations against them as mods.

Finally, any and all complaints about our moderation MUST be sent to the proper channels. You can make a PFI thread in which you do not call out a mod by name, you can pm the mod account with a complaint, or you can e-mail our admin Derek directly.

This is your ONE warning here. Next time, you will be vacationed.

Perknose
Senior AT Mod

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: OCguy
You are quoting the opinion sections of the editorial that you posted.

If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....


"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"


The bolded parts have to be true or false.


Which is it?

Liberals don't deal with facts. They deal with what they feel! They will not address the factual data. Instead, they will go off on personal attacks, insults and all sorts of red herrings. Anything to avoid actually addressing the facts.

As the FACTS show, despite what liberals and their media overlords state, Obama's approval ratings are...average at best. In fact, his disapproval ratings are historic highs.

But no, here comes the flame train...choo choo!

:roll:

Awww, look at the cute little neocon posting.

More proof...where is the warning for this guy for using the term "cute little neo con" in an insulting and condescending manner? There is none, and there will be none.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: OCguy
You are quoting the opinion sections of the editorial that you posted.

If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....


"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"

The bolded parts have to be true or false.

Which is it?

They are false according to Gallup's own numbers. The editorial seems completely unhinged from reality. It states that Obama's approval ratings in April were 56 percent by Gallup's numbers, but Gallup has NEVER recorded a result lower than 59% for Obama, rated him at 65% on the day the editorial was written, and gives him an average of 63% for his first 100 days. Furthermore, if you check Gallup's own article on where Obama falls in the scope of presidents after their first 100 days, they place him above Clinton, Bush 1, Bush 2, Reagan, and Nixon, and below Carter, Eisenhower, and Kennedy.

If you want to see the fundamental dishonesty in this editorial, you have to check what it's being based upon. It seems to be using this poll from Gallup and then only taking the people who rate Obama's job as 'good' or 'excellent' as his approval rating, ignoring those who describe it as 'fair' in order to come up with his 56% number. Why he is using this as compared to the straight approve/disapprove numbers that Gallup provides in the same article as Obama's 'approval rating' is because those numbers are inconvenient for him.

Furthermore, his conclusion that Americans are disenchanted with Obama because he campaigned as a centrist but instead governed by the far left is also directly contradicted by the same poll he got his previous numbers, with the poll concluding:

the new poll also finds that Americans generally got what they expected in the Obama presidency.

The poll goes on to further state that 62% say he has done as they expected, but a full 24% say he has exceeded their expectations. Assuming a lack of sarcastic polling victims, that means a full 86% think Obama met or exceeded their expectations.

In short, the editorial is attempting to dishonestly manipulate polling data from Gallup in the hopes that people aren't smart enough to read it for themselves. It's the Washington Times though, so that's not exactly a surprise. (you know how the librul media is!)

edited for quote clarity.

 

[Pens1566]

I wasn't aware that neocon is such a huge slur ....

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: OCguy
You are quoting the opinion sections of the editorial that you posted.

If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....


"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"


The bolded parts have to be true or false.


Which is it?

Liberals don't deal with facts. They deal with what they feel! They will not address the factual data. Instead, they will go off on personal attacks, insults and all sorts of red herrings. Anything to avoid actually addressing the facts.

As the FACTS show, despite what liberals and their media overlords state, Obama's approval ratings are...average at best. In fact, his disapproval ratings are historic highs.

But no, here comes the flame train...choo choo!

:roll:

You know for all the time you spend babbling about THE FACTS, you seem to have no command of them.

I liked your idea about abandoning the forum though, I haven't seen you add one post of value, just a bunch of stupid trolling.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Liberals don't deal with facts. They deal with what they feel! They will not address the factual data. Instead, they will go off on personal attacks, insults and all sorts of red herrings.

Kind of like what you are doing in this thread and forum

Case in point. I've seen your posts, Red Dawn. No surprise that you would use your mod powers to issue warnings against someone who doesn't agree with what you believe. I called some folks liberal, which they also claim to be. Oh noes!

Any warnings for those folks who have in fact actually insulted and attacked other posters using profanity, slurs, etc.? IE, the many, MANY insulting and personal attacks against conservatives on this board?

I think not. I rest my case. When the mods of a forum definitely slant a certain way, it is time to abandon that forum.

Sorry Bud that was no warning, just an observation made by me as a member and not in my capacity as a Moderator.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: OCguy
You are quoting the opinion sections of the editorial that you posted.

If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....


"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"


The bolded parts have to be true or false.


Which is it?

Liberals don't deal with facts. They deal with what they feel! They will not address the factual data. Instead, they will go off on personal attacks, insults and all sorts of red herrings. Anything to avoid actually addressing the facts.

As the FACTS show, despite what liberals and their media overlords state, Obama's approval ratings are...average at best. In fact, his disapproval ratings are historic highs.

But no, here comes the flame train...choo choo!

:roll:

Awww, look at the cute little neocon posting.

More proof...where is the warning for this guy for using the term "cute little neo con" in an insulting and condescending manner? There is none, and there will be none.

That's because warnings aren't given out for tiny things like that in this forum. You could give him a corresponding conservative insult and you wouldn't hear a thing either. You've got to grow a thicker skin and ditch the conservative persecution complex.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: loki8481
why are you reading the Washington Times? it's worse than the NY Post.

I generally don't read it. I followed a link from a post on RedState.com which lauded the op-ed, where I was reading an entry claiming that Obama was releasing torture memos and closing black sites and Guantanamo because he wanted us to get attacked by terrorists again early in his term so he could still blame Bush which was linked to a post on Andrew Sullivan's blog, which I do generally read.

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
As the FACTS show, despite what liberals and their media overlords state, Obama's approval ratings are...average at best.

Well which is it, average or "in the basement"? Eskimo's pretty much laid out how they configured their numbers though. I don't think you know what a fact is.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Furthermore, his conclusion that Americans are disenchanted with Obama because he campaigned as a centrist but instead governed by the far left is also directly contradicted by the same poll he got his previous numbers, with the poll concluding:

the new poll also finds that Americans generally got what they expected in the Obama presidency.

The poll goes on to further state that 62% say he has done as they expected, but a full 24% say he has exceeded their expectations. Assuming a lack of sarcastic polling victims, that means a full 86% think Obama met or exceeded their expectations.

If you expect something to be disagreeable and it turns out to actually be disagreeable, then you have gotten what you expected.

If someone asked me today if Obama's actions have been what I expected from him, my answer would be that they are indeed roughly what I expected. If I were asked whether I agreed with those actions, the answer would be different.

I think that most Republicans (and many conservatives) would agree that Obama's actions are essentially what they expected. That's neither necessarily positive or negative. At best it's neutral.

ZV

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: OCguy
You are quoting the opinion sections of the editorial that you posted.

If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....


"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"

The bolded parts have to be true or false.

Which is it?

They are false according to Gallup's own numbers. The editorial seems completely unhinged from reality. It states that Obama's approval ratings in April were 56 percent by Gallup's numbers, but Gallup has NEVER recorded a result lower than 59% for Obama, rated him at 65% on the day the editorial was written, and gives him an average of 63% for his first 100 days. Furthermore, if you check Gallup's own article on where Obama falls in the scope of presidents after their first 100 days, they place him above Clinton, Bush 1, Bush 2, Reagan, and Nixon, and below Carter, Eisenhower, and Kennedy.

If you want to see the fundamental dishonesty in this editorial, you have to check what it's being based upon. It seems to be using this poll from Gallup and then only taking the people who rate Obama's job as 'good' or 'excellent' as his approval rating, ignoring those who describe it as 'fair' in order to come up with his 56% number. Why he is using this as compared to the straight approve/disapprove numbers that Gallup provides in the same article as Obama's 'approval rating' is because those numbers are inconvenient for him.

Furthermore, his conclusion that Americans are disenchanted with Obama because he campaigned as a centrist but instead governed by the far left is also directly contradicted by the same poll he got his previous numbers, with the poll concluding:

the new poll also finds that Americans generally got what they expected in the Obama presidency.

The poll goes on to further state that 62% say he has done as they expected, but a full 24% say he has exceeded their expectations. Assuming a lack of sarcastic polling victims, that means a full 86% think Obama met or exceeded their expectations.

In short, the editorial is attempting to dishonestly manipulate polling data from Gallup in the hopes that people aren't smart enough to read it for themselves. It's the Washington Times though, so that's not exactly a surprise. (you know how the librul media is!)

edited for quote clarity.

As usual, a quality post by eskimospy.

Thanks for taking a look at the REAL facts behind the Washington Post propaganda.

People need to look at these editorials with a more critical eye instead of just blindly accepting the argument. That goes for both sides too btw...

 

[Genx87]

Regardless of what this guy or the MSM is saying. Obama is neither hated nor the most popular president we have ever had at this point in his career. Besides the 100 day mark is a silly measurement anyways.

It will be interesting to see if Obama is able to command high approval ratings through his entire career. It really depends how the economy goes. If we continue in a stagnant poor performing economy he is doomed. If it comes around regardless of what he had to do with it he will recieved credit. It is the nature of the beast.