Post: #1

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/poll-obama...29150.html

"Asked about the 2012 presidential race, 45% of respondents said the country would be better off if the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, had won. Slightly less — 38% — said the country would be worse off under a President Romney."

You don't say...

To all those who chanted "Yes We Can!" and "Four More Years!", I give you my favorite GIF (at the moment)...



Apparently Dagonet and I just got confirmation that Barry will be calling into the podcast next week to discuss these dismal poll numbers.

Post: #2

Sorry dude, but these poll numbers are meaningless.

Young people don't even remember Nixon who was impeached.

Carter was highly unpopular too. Can anyone remember why?

The people who do actually remember older presidents have long forgotten why or changed their views with hindsight.

Reagan supported murderous dictators in South America but is mostly remembered with nostalgia. Go figure.

Then there is always the scapegoat effect of currently being in office. Obama is bound to get criticized now - he's still serving.

Obama has a been an underachieving president but worse than Bush? Bitch please...

Post: #3

(07-02-2014 09:22 PM)dreambig Wrote:  Sorry dude, but these poll numbers are meaningless.

Young people don't even remember Nixon who was impeached.

Carter was highly unpopular too. Can anyone remember why?

The people who do actually remember older presidents have long forgotten why or changed their views with hindsight.

Reagan supported murderous dictators in South America but is mostly remembered with nostalgia. Go figure.

Then there is always the scapegoat effect of currently being in office. Obama is bound to get criticized now - he's still serving.

Obama has a been an underachieving president but worse than Bush? Bitch please...

I'm assuming you're not calling me a 'bitch'.

Secondly you're entitled to your opinion, but to call Obama a better president than Bush is ridiculous.

I could list a million reasons why Obama has been worse, but shall we go down this route?

You can say polls don't matter, but polls are math. It's scientific. To say they don't matter is irrational.

The irony of saying that young people don't remember presidents from the past, only justifies these numbers even more: the youngest voters of today would be more inclined to NOT vote Obama as being the worst, but they did, so that tells you something.

Post: #4

(07-02-2014 09:22 PM)dreambig Wrote:  Reagan supported murderous dictators in South America but is mostly remembered with nostalgia. Go figure.

Could have something to do with the 80's being an economic boom and communism falling...just a hunch!

Post: #5

(07-02-2014 09:29 PM)Christian McQueen Wrote:  I'm assuming you're not calling me a 'bitch'.

No, of course not. I'm one of your fans.

For the record, I dislike Obama and his moronic policies, but this kind of poll doesn't mean much. Do continue though!

Post: #6

Back in 2008, I worked with a whole bunch of Americans. There was open celebration in our office at the time. I thought it was all overblown and that Obama had a massive messiah complex surrounding him. About four months into his presidency, one of my (black) colleagues remarked that Obama should be allowed to run for a third term (remember, he hadn't even completed his first yet). That was the point that the whole thing really jumped the shark for me, or perhaps the Nobel Prize, which was just the macro version. I got the exuberance over the historical significance of his election, but that was just a ridiculous comment to make on so many levels.

Then, I had random Taiwanese people blurt out "Yes we can!" to me. It was a bit bizarre on many levels: 1) I'm not American, 2) if I were American, demographically, I'd be more likely to be a Republican, 3) they weren't American. Yet there you go, there was this whole international vibe of exuberance at the time (hence the Peace Prize).

Back then, I thought Obama's fans had run ahead of him in that respect, but now I think he's a bit of a narcissist. Yet what does this poll really mean anyway? I don't think it will make any difference. Firstly, hardcore liberals will never accept that he could be worse than Bush, and the trouble is that many of the institutions, the media, etc. are run by these clowns.

Secondly, Hillary will just disown him, and then there will be a new opportunity of historical significance to jump onto.

Thirdly, and related to the second point, who is going to vote against the liberals, anyway? I think we can assume that a significant number of conservative women will vote for Hillary. How could they betray the sisterhood by not doing so? What would the corresponding bloc be that would need to defect from the left to not only cancel them out, but tip the balance to the other side? White, blue dog liberals at a stretch? Would they be enough, because the Republicans certainly wouldn't get SWPLs, blacks, Latinos, or any other minority?

If the Democrats were smart, after Hillary, they'd run a Latino, and so on. They could just keep playing the "historically significant" game until the traditional conservative base had been irrecoverably relegated to minority status by demographic changes. The Republicans, being the chumps that they are, will keep going along with this because they love losing.

This is all a facade. We can engage in a certain amount of schadenfreude over all of this, but much like when Tony Blair left office (and who is universally hated by the British public now), guess what? He still gets to do the cocktail and lecture circuit. Obama could probably just do college commencement speeches for the rest of his life and get by quite handsomely. Plus, he still has the Nobel Prize, suckazzzzzzzzz! I doubt he will ever get impeached, and so really, there is absolutely no way for this guy to lose/be punished, no matter how badly he has fucked up so far. At least back in the day there was always the remote threat of a monarch getting his head lopped off, being poisoned by his sibling or dying in battle.

Anyway, I don't even believe in democracy, but I say let the public own this disaster. People get the governments they deserve.

Post: #7

Forbes: Barack Obama's Presidency Is A Complete Failure By His Own, Self-Imposed Standards

Post: #8

It's obviously just because Americans are racisss.

Post: #9

Nixon did a lot of good things.

Post: #10

(07-02-2014 09:30 PM)The Father Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 09:22 PM)dreambig Wrote:  Reagan supported murderous dictators in South America but is mostly remembered with nostalgia. Go figure.

Could have something to do with the 80's being an economic boom and communism falling...just a hunch!

The economy goes through expansions and recessions over the spans of a few years at a time. While one president wants to increase government spending, the other before or after wants to decrease taxes. Due to the multiplier effect, tax decreases end up stimulating the economy more than increases in government spending. Simple math.

Post: #11

(07-02-2014 09:33 PM)dreambig Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 09:29 PM)Christian McQueen Wrote:  I'm assuming you're not calling me a 'bitch'.

No, of course not. I'm one of your fans.

For the record, I dislike Obama and his moronic policies, but this kind of poll doesn't mean much. Do continue though!

Gotcha.

I'm not on the Republican's cock n balls either, but I do find some hilarity in this poll.

Obviously, it won't change anything, but it gives me some sense of hope in Americans that perhaps their heads aren't entirely up their ass.

At this point, I would bet 10 large that Hillary will win because the Republicans seem like they enjoy losing and have no stand-out candidates at this point.

Like the above poster mentioned, their best bet would be to run a Latino to pull the minority vote, which is becoming a huge sector of voters.

EDIT: To put it into a Game perspective: The Republicans are still wearing fuzzy hats and nail polish and wondering why they can't pick up chicks. It's not 2000 anymore!! Stop doing the same shit and expecting it to work.

Post: #12

(07-02-2014 09:33 PM)Christian McQueen Wrote:  Forbes: Barack Obama's Presidency Is A Complete Failure By His Own, Self-Imposed Standards

Counter 1: That article was written by a middle-aged white guy. Patriarchy. Racism. He needs to check his privilege. If you agree with him, you need to check your privilege.

Counter 2: That article was written by a middle-aged white guy. Patriarchy. Racism. His privilege, your privilege, etc.

Counter 3: See Counters 1 & 2. Additionally, statistics reinforce the patriarchy and white privilege.

Counter 4 (this one is multiple choice): a) George Bush's poisoned chalice, b) Obama may not have been perfect, but Mitt Romney wanted to eat poor people, c) obstructionist Republicans in Congress, d) Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize and is for teh geyz, he means well (see options a, b & c).

Edit: Republicans can't run a Latino candidate. It probably still wouldn't work for them in the short term, and it would likely alienate a significant part of their base. In the long term, it would still dilute their electoral/philosophical base due to the demographic changes that would occur under such a presidency. Heads Democrats win, tails Republicans lose.

Post: #13

"There is only one political party in the US: the business party. And it has two factions, the Republicans and the Democrats". - Noam Chomsky

Post: #14

(07-02-2014 09:44 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  Edit: Republicans can't run a Latino candidate. It probably still wouldn't work for them in the short term, and it would likely alienate a significant part of their base. In the long term, it would still dilute their electoral/philosophical base due to the demographic changes that would occur under such a presidency. Heads Democrats win, tails Republicans lose.

Clearly what Republicans need to do is condone, if not encourage, more low-skilled illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America.

Surely low IQ, nanny-state loving illegal immigrants and their descendants will be good for both America and the Republican party (who can certainly beat the Democratic Party at their own game in winning the votes of the descendants of illegal immigrants).

Post: #15

I'm surprised so many people still buy into the culture war of politics. It's all nonsense. All these polls tell me is that the American public is hamstrung and powerless to affect real change. The important things are overlooked in favor of waving blue or red banners. In the country of the blind the one eyed man is king.

Post: #16

A 'what if' scenario me and my politically minded friends often talk about is how the American public would have reacted to all the scandals that have been revealed under Obama's presidency if they had been revealed/occurred under Bush's term. Can you imagine the NSA spy ring and IRS intimidation scandal happening while G Dubya was in the big chair? The treatment of Snowden by Obama is a shameful stain on American history and completely undermines what the country purportedly stands for, no matter how one personally feels about Snowden or what he did. Imagine the fallout amongst the American public if Dubya handled it the exact same way Obama has. The guy would have had rocks chucked at him every time he stuck his head out the Oval Office window.

I love watching shows from '08-'10 when America still had Obama fever and was all about gargling the guy's nuts at every opportunity, portraying him like some hybrid Gandhi Jesus rock star. I wonder if this picture is hanging up around 'yes we're still open' Gitmo somewhere:

Post: #17

Don't trust anything you read:

Post: #18

Honestly I have little interest in what the opinions of average Americans are on such matters. Like others have mentioned, people have short memories, most don't know much about history and most people can't even name their congressional representative when asked or explain the three branches of government. People have already forgotten about the failures of Bush and his ratings are actually good now. Unreal. If Iraq unravels, it will illogically be blamed on Obama, even though Bush was the one that got us into this mess and Obama opposed the war from the very start when it was unpopular to do so. But most people are low-information voters and are generally driven by how good they are doing financially and how much confidence a politician makes them feel. The majority of that emotion comes from their perceived financial state. If their house value has fallen, they aren't making as much money as they feel they should, they have high debt ratios, unemployment is above average and hidden inflation is eroding away at their purchasing power, they will automatically feel that the president is a failure. Whether the current state can be directly attributed to that president is or not is immaterial. I think presidents are given both too much credit and too much blame for economies in general. Unless there is something very specific you can point out that made a major difference such as Bush cutting taxes while ramping up spending on a war, this directly led to a ballooning debt. I guarantee you 90% of the people when asked to give detailed answers about what Obama policies are failures would struggle to give more than the most superficial explanation. It's just like when you ask the public what they think of Obama care, the majority pan it. But when you ask them what they think of the individual components of the policy without letting them know it's Obamacare, they love it. That tells you everything you need to know about the depth of public opinion.

I would like to see a similar poll done where we limit it to people who have scholarly backgrounds in political science, history and economics.

Post: #19

(07-02-2014 10:16 PM)Billy Chubbs Wrote:  I love watching shows from '08-'10 when America still had Obama fever and was all about gargling the guy's nuts at every opportunity, portraying him like some hybrid Gandhi Jesus rock star. I wonder if this picture is hanging up around 'yes we're still open' Gitmo somewhere:

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

It was pretty obvious then when the whole nation and media (mostly Hollywood) was getting their panties wet with obama-rama fantacism it was all just bound to come crashing down to reality. You don't hype someone up to these mythical levels without there being a lot of self delusion (amongst the population) involved.

I'll also bet whoever is in charge next will also suck, and the person after that, and after that..until America's decline is complete.

I just hope America can at least keep it together and produce stable enough returns for my portfolio and business until I can retire.

Then i'll safely watch from a distance across an ocean as the people and economy start to tear each other apart.

Post: #20

It has pretty much come down to this, if your president smiles, he probably sucks. #EndSmiling

Post: #21

(07-02-2014 10:21 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  I would like to see a similar poll done where we limit it to people who have scholarly backgrounds in political science, history and economics.

Far be it for me to back up the average voter here (because I agree with you that the average voter is a moron), but would those be the same genius experts who predicted/warned against the GFC, then made sure it won't happen again, and have been involved in the revolving door of Wall Street and Washington? Yeah, they'd be the guys I'd definitely ask.

Post: #22

Bush jr and sr sends American troops to die in Iraq on the premise of weapons of mass destruction, proven to be a lie.
9/11 hits and Bush jr takes a few days to reach the site.
Bush jr is a known draft dodger of the Vietnam war.
Then there is this http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022473474 - must be nice to have money to buy 100,000 acres of land.
Sorry this scumbag gets my vote.
Wish I had a shoe to throw at him as well.

Post: #23

Obama is like some shitty affirmative action hire who fucks everything up but can't be fired for fear of a lawsuit.

If he was a white Republican he not only would have been impeached by now, it's very likely he'd be sitting in a prison cell.

I mean, you know you're truly godawful when you actually manage to make people nostalgic for the days of George W. Bush.

I fully agree that the Democrats are cognizant of the fact that they are sitting on a political goldmine for the next 20+ years due to the success of their identity politics tactic and shifting demographics. A female President, a Hispanic President, then a homosexual President (or maybe the homo will beat out the Hispanic with the way things are going). Maybe they'll even throw in a tranny at some point just to really rub it in our faces. They'll all be able to get away with things that white Republicans couldn't, which simply means they'll be able to screw us over even harder and with no accountability.

After all, you can't impeach the first ______ President, because that would be ___ist.

Post: #24

The problem with speakeasy's suggestion of polling scholarly types like political scientists or historians is the political bent of said folks and what we consider experts these days.

Scholarly types tend to reflexively blame Republicans and if you press them enough, they blame George Bush. Further, standards have fallen so badly for our experts on history or political policy that most of our "experts" are not all that perceptive or intelligent.

That being said, I don't think hindsight will be kind to either Bush or Obama's presidency, as both men seem to be more worried about appearing competent instead of concerning themselves with the nuts and bolts of statesmanship. Neither man seems interested in actually presiding as President: Obama has never left the campaign stump and Bush was only interested in his image as a man with a solid spine of steel, "The Decider."

That being said, if you think Obama or Bush is bad, wait for Hillary.



Just wait.

Post: #25

Small sample size. Obama still has more fans than any president in US history.