Blech. I hope they don't.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Much like any presidential election with an incumbent ever.

You might want to brush up on presidential approval/disapproval ratings in the spring of election years.

Polar Bear Phan wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Much like any presidential election with an incumbent ever.

You might want to brush up on presidential approval/disapproval ratings in the spring of election years.

Because as we all know, public perception of job performance in early spring is a key indicator of election results.

McGraw how much you lose on that Ohio result last night?

jerseyhoya wrote:McGraw how much you lose on that Ohio result last night?

Didn't bet, I was admittedly reverse jinxing. I was pretty scared about what you republican folk were going to do yesterday though.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Because as we all know, public perception of job performance in early spring is a key indicator of election results.

Yeah, it really is important (based on relatively small sample size).

Gallup wrote:President Obama's average job approval rating for the month of February in Gallup Daily tracking was 45%, with 47% disapproving, unchanged from January.
...
The 50% approval mark is a crucial one for presidents in a re-election year. All incumbents who have been elected to a second term had a 50% or higher average approval rating by February of that year, and in the case of all but George W. Bush, they maintained that through Election Day.

Hard to believe McGraw would say anything inaccurate in this threadt

Also, Obama with the strong begging Dem sens to oppose the Keystone pipeline because the enviro lobby opposes it and accusing the GOP for pushing it for political reasons at the same time.

And how many achieved a 50% approval rating after the arbitrarily chosen February and still lost reelection? It really means nothing. But if you and JH are so inclined I'd gladly make a bet. Provided you give me odds of course, since the indicators are in favor of Romney so say you.

Polar Bear Phan wrote:
Yeah, it really is important (based on relatively small sample size).

The approval ratings charts at this page are kind of neat, and collectively make the importance of approval ratings look to this untutored eye more like a matter of small sample size luck or something

What is glaringly missing from the charts at link #2 is an overlay of economic indicators (employment/unemployment, cost of living, etc) or stuff like military successes/failures/body counts/etc

Vying for my short list of most interesting ratings charts: Truman; Nixon. Neither Reagan nor Clinton ever had ratings peaks as high as Carter. Or Truman. or either Prez Bush. not once.

I should have but didn't realize Kennedy had enviably high approval until someone put bullet holes in his head.

drsmooth wrote:Vying for my short list of most interesting ratings charts: Truman; Nixon. Neither Reagan nor Clinton ever had ratings peaks as high as Carter. Or Truman. or either Prez Bush. not once.

I should have but didn't realize Kennedy had enviably high approval until someone put bullet holes in his head.

It makes sense though--the Kennedy Presidency was uninspiring at best. When you ask historians and political scientists to rate Presidents, Kennedy is way back in the pack. Regular people, though, put him in the top 10. Because he was shot. You'd think that as the people who actually remember the assassination die themselves his reputation would begin to recede some.

TenuredVulture wrote:

drsmooth wrote:I should have but didn't realize Kennedy had enviably high approval until someone put bullet holes in his head.

It makes sense though--the Kennedy Presidency was uninspiring at best. When you ask historians and political scientists to rate Presidents, Kennedy is way back in the pack. Regular people, though, put him in the top 10. Because he was shot. You'd think that as the people who actually remember the assassination die themselves his reputation would begin to recede some.

I don't know what you're talking about, but what I was talking about was that, for whatever reason, I felt his performance was probably not regarded as all that great while he was president - when in fact it was, relative to other presidents.

You did take a gander at those charts, right?

Kennedy's rating look pretty good in those charts. Peaks near close to 80.


The real outlier is Clinton, whose approval ratings had a generally positive slope, while everyone else went in a different direction. (Though GWB started with probably the lowest ratings of a new President, shoots up post 9/11 and then descends to the murky depths.

dajafi wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Getting into war with Iran would pretty much ruin the economy. Even without the flow of oil being disrupted the mere threat puts us at above $5 a gallon in a short time. Say bye bye to a significant portion of the small businesses in the country if that happens.

This, plus the high likelihood of new terror attacks, an extreme security (or "security") clampdown in response, the loss of whatever goodwill Obama has managed to generate in the world, and--when "the Jews" (as opposed to a small group of multidenominational religious nuts) are blamed for all this--an unprecedented wave of anti-semitism in America.

It's a really, really bad idea even if it works on its own terms, which is no sure thing.

which is why the republican nuts are all for it. trash the economy, trash Obama, kill small businesses (more money for big business!), money for defense contractors, and Romney gets to be prez, etc --- all winners in the GOP handbook.

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

drsmooth wrote:I should have but didn't realize Kennedy had enviably high approval until someone put bullet holes in his head.

It makes sense though--the Kennedy Presidency was uninspiring at best. When you ask historians and political scientists to rate Presidents, Kennedy is way back in the pack. Regular people, though, put him in the top 10. Because he was shot. You'd think that as the people who actually remember the assassination die themselves his reputation would begin to recede some.

I don't know what you're talking about, but what I was talking about was that, for whatever reason, I felt his performance was probably not regarded as all that great while he was president - when in fact it was, relative to other presidents.

You did take a gander at those charts, right?

I think JFK's ratings, even pre-assassination, were high for two reasons: he faced down Khruschev in the missile crisis (never mind that his blunders helped precipitate the crisis to start with), and he spoke well in response to the dramatic events of the civil rights movement (never mind that he was slow to act and totally feckless in terms of moving his legislation).

Much of his presidency can be seen as a triumph of style over substance.

TenuredVulture wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Vying for my short list of most interesting ratings charts: Truman; Nixon. Neither Reagan nor Clinton ever had ratings peaks as high as Carter. Or Truman. or either Prez Bush. not once.

I should have but didn't realize Kennedy had enviably high approval until someone put bullet holes in his head.

It makes sense though--the Kennedy Presidency was uninspiring at best. When you ask historians and political scientists to rate Presidents, Kennedy is way back in the pack. Regular people, though, put him in the top 10. Because he was shot. You'd think that as the people who actually remember the assassination die themselves his reputation would begin to recede some.

As the Drs. charts pointed out, people really, really liked Kennedy even before he was shot, even if it didn't reach beatific levels until afterward. You're certainly right that many people have argued since that the admiration wasn't warranted, but that doesn't erase the appeal. Much like I've given up trying to battle the admiration of Reagan; people just liked the guy, and the facts be damned.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

lolololololololol

Are those his kids? Did he start a family band? If so, I'm a big big fan.

And anybody who can rhyme "man" with "Reagan" is a-okay in my book.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

lolololololololol

I made it through 30 seconds of this. I blame my morbid curiosity.

that video belongs in post w/o comment.

Whitest band ever.