Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Poll-lemic

It is my sincere hope that every one of these wingnut yokels currently gloating over Obama's supposedly low poll numbers is just as worshipful of them when they tilt in Obama's favor. As I recall, they were happy to have a president who took pride in laughing at polls, and they were exceptionally good at deflecting Bush's sub-30s ratings by pointing out Congress' then-9 percent approval rating. By that logic, all Obama supporters have to do is point out Sarah Palin's ratings, and he will win. Or something.

I'll be watching.

44 comments:

herb said...

I find it highly amusing that liberals are so scared of a soon-to-be jobless governor of Alaska that they constantly have to bring her up and take digs at her. How does mentioning her even make sense in whatever context you're trying to create?

NOLA Progressive said...

I don't think anyone believed he could sustain his ridiculously high approval rating indefinitely. Eventually, items of substance must be pushed through, and that always pisses some people off.

I know the wealthier of my family are frothing at the mouth over healthcare reform. Doing what needs to be done makes you less popular at times, but as you say, they will swing back in the other direction after healthcare is made more available and less expensive, and when unemployment begins to tilt back in the right direction.

Polls are great, but substantive changes are better.

Ian McGibboney said...

Herb - I can do a much better job at digging on Sarah Palin than this. This isn't a dig - just an example of someone less popular than Obama, who by the way is polling at or higher than most presidents at the 6-month mark.

NOLA - Well said. I've actually drafted a few posts about both Obama support and the long-term benefit of health care.

herb said...

This isn't a dig - just an example of someone less popular than Obama, who by the way is polling at or higher than most presidents at the 6-month mark.

Less popular? Both of their respective approval ratings are hovering around the mid-50's.

Anyhoo, it's very telling that to pump Obama up you have to compare him to a Governor about to leave office, oh how the mighty have fallen.

BTW I guess your pledge of never using polls to justify your opinions is out the window, right?

they will swing back in the other direction after healthcare is made more available and less expensive

You do know that most of his health care "reforms" won't even go into effect until 2011, and no one is expecting jobs to improve until late next year, and even then it won't be as good as it was under Bush. That's long enough for him to lose Congress and a long time for his approval rating to steadily sink. He's knows it too, that's why he's getting more desperate in his words and actions.

Ian McGibboney said...

Herb: I'd guess Sarah Palin is polling in the mid-50s among conservatives. Outside of that bubble, she can't possibly be doing nearly that well.

But even if she is, my point is that, using conservative poll logic from 2008, all anyone has to do to validate Obama's poll numbers is point to someone doing worse. No matter that the jobs or even bodies aren't equivalent - such as the infamous comparison I mentioned between Bush and Congress. This just goes to show how pointless day-to-day poll numbers are in general.

As for health care, I don't think Obama's struggling as much as you think. And I hardly see it as a liability that the plan is long-term. Yes, instant help would be great, but a short-term gratification, such as with Bush's to-hell-with-the-future tax cut policies, is not what we need. The changes Obama seeks are lasting. They aren't going to be forgotten when 2010 or 2012 rolls around.

herb said...

As for health care, I don't think Obama's struggling as much as you think.

Right, that's why his previously imposed deadline of "before the August recess" will be missed and nothing will be done until at least Labor Day, and if he doesn't get Blue Dogs pacified this whole plan will go the way of HilaryCare. Why do you think he threw tonight's presser together after support eroded all week? He's freaking the fuck out and is facing an increasingly hostile press that looks at his dropping poll numbers and see a man that's not as infallible as they once thought.

The changes Obama seeks are lasting. They aren't going to be forgotten when 2010 or 2012 rolls around.

I agree, but I think it will be remembered for different reasons.

Ian McGibboney said...

I think you're exaggerating, Herb. But I'm not surprised that you're excited about the prospect of Obama failing and of health care reform failing.

herb said...

I'd like some kind of health care reform, I just don't think we need to fleece "the rich" and bankrupt our grandkids to get it. Maybe if he showed some of the bipartisanship he campaigned on he wouldn't be sinking in the polls and his initiatives wouldn't be failing.

NOLA Progressive said...

Herb: First off there aren't his healthcare reforms alone. He certainly has a hand in the health care reform bill, but Congress authors the bill.

Second, as it is proposed now, there are pieces of the reform that do not take effect until 2011, but that is a bone of contention and may change before the final bill is passed. However, I will certainly settle for substantive change in 2011 rather than never.

Third, what actually permeates through your skull when you read?

BTW I guess your pledge of never using polls to justify your opinions is out the window, right?


This post doesn't use the polls to justify an opinion. It strikes at the fact that people are using polls to form some sort of hard and fast political assertion. The very nature of this post derides polls and their use as political fodder.

You are not terrible at discussing the fine points and details Herb, but damn you are really dense at identifying the thesis of a written work aren't you?

Ian McGibboney said...

For my part, I don't ever recall using polls to back up my words. I've always taken the approach that what I'm writing is my opinion and observations, which don't rely on how a person or an issue is polling. It's entirely possible that I HAVE cited polls, because I've written a lot. But it would have most likely been in a published work where I needed specific information, or in a research paper.

I certainly don't use an isolated daily poll to suggest a sweeping trend, and I pity those who do, largely out of desperation.

herb said...

I wasn't referring to the post itself, I was referring to his comment gloating over Obama's poll numbers compared to past presidents at the 6 month mark.

Try and keep up.

Ian McGibboney said...

If that counts as gloating, then I have to be the lamest gloater on Earth. That's possible, because I don't have a lot of practice gloating.

But correcting your own gloating, herb, is not itself gloating. You're here to brag that the sky's falling and I'm telling you what you felt was a nut. It's called, keeping a clear head. Try it sometime.

NOLA Progressive said...

Keeping up isn't hard when you're not behind. Exactly how does the president saying the legislation must be defecit neutral or he will not sign it equal bankrupting our kids?

Just because you say a thing over and over does not make it true chief. Also, the fact that he even acknowledges there actually is a Republican party is more bipartisanship than than they deserve. Further, he called out and lauded the congressmen and women who have brought fresh ideas to the table and been sincere about passing real and meaningful legislation. He also gave credit to the Republican Congress for passing the medical thinktank committee legislation. he made a point to attribute it their party and praise how good of an idea it was.

herb said...

Exactly how does the president saying the legislation must be defecit neutral or he will not sign it equal bankrupting our kids?

Yeah man, it's not like politicians ever break promises or anything. Clinton said he would never raise taxes on the middle class, and he did. Obama has shown a penchant for saying whatever the fuck people want to hear so they like him. I don't recall him talking about it needing to be deficit neutral before this weeks revolt and the signs that citizens are souring on it because it costs too much.

As for the rest of your pap, maybe he should have run all his grand bipartisanship by Nancy Pelosi, who by nearly every account told Republicans to fuck off while she crafted this travesty with the AMA and whatever other special interest group has them in their pocket. But hey, Obama gave some GOP member a kudos once, so obviously he's bipartisan!

Ian McGibboney said...

I recall Bush 41 saying he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class in 1988, but then signed the largest tax increase in history in 1990. Are you sure you checked your facts, Herb?

If Obama really adapted his plan as you've described it, then maybe he really is willing to listen to people. If he hadn't, then you'd be saying he was a hard-headed dictator and conveniently leaving out Bush, just as you did above.

Obama is more bipartisan than he should be at this point. He extended the branch, but the GOP is still in full Bush 43 mode and shit all over him. It's not a simple philosophical difference; they know that any Obama success reflects negatively upon them, so they will never get behind any of his major policies. It's a petulance that will cost this nation dearly if not checked.

herb said...

I wasn't talking about Bush 41.

“I will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs. If the money does not come in there to pay for these programs, we will cut other government spending or we will slow down the phase-in of the programs. I am not gonna raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs.”

- Bill Clinton, October 19, 1992

“But families earning as little as $20,000 a year — members of the “forgotten middle class” whose taxes he promised during his campaign to cut — will also be asked to send more dollars to Washington under the President’s plan.”

- New York Times, February 18, 1993


Whatever though, that's the past.

Obama is more bipartisan than he should be at this point. He extended the branch
How so? by having cocktail hour at the WH and telling Republicans to do what he says because "I won"? Yeah dude, totally bipartisan.

they know that any Obama success reflects negatively upon them, so they will never get behind any of his major policies.

They will never get behind them because the policies suck and will do nothing but cost people more money. Why do you think the energy bill is languishing in Senate committees? It's not Republicans holding it up, it's Democrats that haven't drank the kool-aid and see what a destructive piece of shit bill it is.

Ian McGibboney said...

Herb, the Republicans don't give a shit about runaway spending or bipartisanship. If they did, they would have criticized Bush's spending and would be working with Obama now. But neither is happening. Even if Obama gave the GOP everything they wanted (and sometimes it seems like he's trying), they'd still refuse to cooperate. Why? Because he's a Democrat in power. Not Their Guy. All this false outrage stems from that simple fact.

By the way, I believe your quote from the New York Times refers to what the Clintons' health care might have done to the middle class. As you know, that never came to pass. Bush 41, on the other hand, actually did raise taxes.

herb said...

That quote has nothing to do with his failed HilaryCare. He raised taxes asap upon taking office, and that was after campaigning on a so-called "middle class tax cut". His justification was "The economy is much worse than I thought".

Even if Obama gave the GOP everything they wanted (and sometimes it seems like he's trying), they'd still refuse to cooperate. Why? Because he's a Democrat in power. Not Their Guy. All this false outrage stems from that simple fact.

heh, so your master thesis is that they oppose him because they oppose him ideologically? Did it take you a while to deduce that Sherlock? Of course they oppose him because he's a Democrat, donkey polices suck balls and are usually in direct contradiction of Republican polices, why would they support polices they think are wrong?

BTW I'm sure you had no problem the last 8 years when Democrats opposed Bush ideologically...of course you didn't.

Ian McGibboney said...

It's not even so much ideological as it is us-versus-them. To say the GOP today has an ideology at all is all but a joke. They haven't followed their own platform of small, streamlined government for years, and certainly haven't helped small businesses or the middle class.

Now that Obama's president, they offer no serious alternatives to any of the hot-button issues, other than to give said issue a "clever" name (i.e., Obamacare) and spend all their time misrepresenting and attacking it.

That leads me to believe that the GOP opposition to Obama isn't about philosophical differences so much as it is making sure that he fails. But that's what you have to do when you have nothing to contribute.

Pete said...

This is interesting, substitute "Bush" for "Obama" and flip your (D) and (R) usage and you sound just like every conservative blog the past 8 years. But I'm sure in your ideological blindness you fail to see the irony.

Ian McGibboney said...

Pete, you sound like every conservative I know, trying to dismiss these issues with the hypocrite argument. That's played out. Got any actual ideas?

Pete said...

I have lots of ideas. Sadly though I don't think you have many beyond agreeing with whatever Barack says.

Pete said...

now...

"Pete, you sound like every conservative I know, trying to dismiss these issues with the hypocrite argument."

but earlier....

"the Republicans don't give a shit about runaway spending or bipartisanship. If they did, they would have criticized Bush's spending and would be working with Obama now."

Whats all this talk about "the hypocrite argument"? yeah, exactly.

Ian McGibboney said...

Let's talk about some of those ideas. Pretend you're hurling ad hominem attacks if it helps.

Ian McGibboney said...

Pete, the quote of mine you cite is true. If it isn't, show me how Republicans are working with Obama, or are otherwise parading their own solutions instead of being reactionary.

Pete said...

Whether it's true or not it's still an example of the very "hypocrite argument" you derisively admonished me for.

Ian McGibboney said...

I can't help it that you're locked into this simplistic mode of thinking. But it must be a relief indeed that you're able to sidestep any and all issues with the "Ian is a ..." argument. I guess focusing on the messenger is all you've got when the message is beyond justification.

NOLA Progressive said...

Is it actually so hard to just admit Obama inherited a cluster fuck? I don't even care who you want to blame it on, but he definitely inherited one.

What it boils down to is do you think the man is sincere in his desire and attempts to help the American people? I and I assume Ian, do. Pete and Herb you seem to not tilt in that direction.

Conservatives were willing to embrace that principle while Bush was in office. I am willing to embrace that principle while Obama is in office (for a time). When we reach the end game, we shall see who shakes out better. Let's just say that I'm not too worried.

I will say that this rhetoric smacks eerily of the same junk that went on while Clinton was in office. It was all the end of the world and the end of America as we know it etc... Didn't really turn out to be that way at all. If I recall, Mr. Bush inherited a fairly in order country from Clinton. Oh there were definitely problems, but there was a surplus and nothing nearly as dire as we see now. I'm pretty comfortable with Obama's intentions.

Pete said...

Sorry I hurt your feelweens bro, I'll stop pointing out your brazen hypocrisy for now. What would you like to have a deep, philosophical discussion about on your free Blogspot blog Ian, I'm sure whatever we talk about though will have deep repercussions all across the US so let's make it one for the ages!

Ian McGibboney said...

I've often been called - even to my face - a hypocrite for supporting Obama, because apparently my lot in life is to be a cynical critic, not someone with actual beliefs who can change his outlook when someone closer to his own ideas achieves office. I criticized Bush because of who he was and what he did. I support Obama because of who he is and what he wants to achieve. Neither is perfect and neither can achieve full love/full hate with me. But does supporting one more than the other make me a hypocrite? Sorry, I don't see that. But in those accusations, I see people with nothing better to contribute than personal insults.

Ian McGibboney said...

Pete, this insignificant blog seems to occupy a lot of your time. You should at least read it, so you know what to talk about instead of harassing me all the time.

NOLA Progressive said...

Ian, you know it is the prime directive in the Wingnut Code of Ethics manual to: Understand nothing, present no substantial information, hate everything different, and insult anyone and everyone who thinks differently than the current furors tell us to.

That's it in a nuthshell. You are basically arguing with Donna Reed. Pre-programmed automatons who are absolutely and fundamentally incapable of embracing a new or innovative notion or issue.

Now, what wingnuts will do is pull some pieces of what I just wrote out in bold or italics or somesuch, and follow it with something like "That's funny....you douchebags spend 8 years hating...blah blah". It will include somehting about libs or liberals or equivalent adjective laced with derision and referencing hypocrisy. This is directive 44 in the Wingnut Code of Ethics subsection rebutting an argument like an a-hole.

NOLA Progressive said...

Oh and don't forget that they will inevitably include something about Keith Olberman listening, Obama worhiping, KOS/DU reading...blah blah blah as well.

Pete said...

"I criticized Bush because of who he was and what he did."

And that's the same reason we on the right criticize Obama, but in our case it's wrong? I said I'd stop pointing out your brazen hypocrisy...but if you keep putting it on display it's hard to hold back.

Ian McGibboney said...

NOLA - Well said and brilliant! We should write the entire guide. Shouldn't be too hard - my comment threads are a good for at least 60 directives.

Pete - I never said it was wrong to criticize Obama; just that it should be constructive and not this insulting, reactionary bullshit that passes for conservative argument.

Pete said...

"Pete - I never said it was wrong to criticize Obama; just that it should be constructive and not this insulting, reactionary bullshit that passes for conservative argument."

On a lark earlier I looked in your archives (btw, Blogspot archiving is horrendous) and found quite a few stories about Bush and I don't recall seeing one offering honest, constructive criticism. In fact most served up snarky "insulting, reactionary bullshit", Do you honestly not see how disingenuous you sound when your very own blog postings do nothing but show your hypocrisy?

Ian McGibboney said...

Pete, I think you should back that up.

That said, I probably did do some of what you're accusing me of. But not as much as you probably suspect. Even in angry moments, I've tried to express my own view of what should happen. At least as far as serious discussions go.

Also, I'm not the leadership of the Democratic Party, nor a TV pundit. My worst instincts as a writer are not driving the party's policy, as is the case with today's Republicans.

NOLA Progressive said...

Yeah Ian that might be a blast. Come up with a catchy name and we could publish that sucker!

Pete said...

Back it up? Ian all one has to do is look through your Captions archive and see plenty of snark and insulting, reactionary bullshit. Do you really think your blog was constructive when it came to the president the last few years?

I just find it quite hypocritical how over the last few years it was all "Bush LIED" and "BUSHITLER MCNAZI" from the left, and now that Obama is in office they suddenly demand only constructive criticism of the president, anything less...well that's just being mean and taking part in the PARTY OF NO. It's ridiculous, and comical at the same time. Sorry to burst you bubble but we're allowed to get mean and snarky too, it's only fair, and that's what you Democrats demand, fairness.

Oh let me take a page from NOLA Progressive and predict what you'll say "But Bush did lie and he was Hitler so we were right to be mean!" all the while ignoring the meat of the argument; your blatant hypocrisy when it comes to who is allowed to criticism what president and when.

Ian McGibboney said...

Seriously, Pete? You're citing my CAPTIONS to back up your argument? That makes my actual writings feel bad!

Look, if you're trying to suggest that I've never been snarky, then this would have been a much shorter conversation. I am snarky. For a reason.

I've always done satire. Satire can be mean at times, but it also makes a point. It isn't just sheer insult for its own sake, like you trolls spew. It's not my fault if you aren't sophisticated enough to understand that or make your own in a similar vein. If you could, maybe I'd respect you more.

But no. All you and your pals do is turn every discussion about us, and what hacks/hypocrites/fools we are. Every attempt to turn this into a productive conversation about issues falls flat. Why? Because, much like your petulant Party of No leadership in Washington, you have NO HIGH GROUND. All you guys can do is attack, because everything you stand for has been proven tragically wrong, and you aren't man enough to own up to it. Instead, you stick to the same tired principles, myopic to how oblivious and obnoxious you come off. You will split hairs endlessly, making tortured leaps of logic in a desperate attempt to avoid any substantial discussion. Doing so only makes you look petty.

But let's just say for a moment that you are right. Let's pretend that I really am a hypocrite and someone who can dish it out but can't take it. Is that a license for you to sink to my level, Pete? Why don't you show me how to be better instead? Clearly, you're the one to point the way!

Pete said...

"All you guys can do is attack"

But Ian, don't you see the utter hypocrisy of that statement because for the last few years THAT'S ALL YOU DID! Your blog isn't and was never constructive, it's only purpose is to attack Republicans and Republican ideals. There's no constructive criticism within your archives. Now that your side is in a position that they can get some of the heat you've been dishing out all these years suddenly it's all "HEY HEY HEY LET'S HAVE A REAL CONVERSATION LETS NOT BE MEAN!" It's joke, it's a fucking joke Ian and that you don't see it just shows what a ideologically blinded hypocrite you are.

Ian McGibboney said...

Hey Pete, if my blog is worthless, why do you insist on wasting so much of your oh-so-valuable time attacking it? Why don't you start your own blog and be better than me? Or are you just the latest in a long line of hecklers who has nothing better to do than to cut me down all day and night, behind the cowardly cover of a blank profile?

It takes a lot of nerve to dismiss a five-year block of work as having nothing constructive. It's also stupid, because there's no way you've read it all.

Your problem, Pete, is that you think the not-fit-for-gossip Obama criticism is anywhere on par with that of a president who had been in office for an entire term already, had started two wars and plunged the economy into the toilet. And as long as you have no perspective, than you will just be pitied here.

Pete said...

Ah so my prediction was correct!

"Oh let me take a page from NOLA Progressive and predict what you'll say "But Bush did lie and he was Hitler so we were right to be mean!"

Nice to see you're as utterly predictable as I thought.

What is your hangup with people who aren't well established BLOGSPOT bloggers like you having the gall to criticize you or your chosen president? You did it with that jenkins guy and now you're trying it on me. Is this like a common tract you use to try and minimize the criticism? It's pathetically transparent if it is.

Face it Ian, your blog isn't anything great. It's you basically trolling Republicans and them not even knowing or caring that you exist, hell even Democrats don't even know or care that you exist. You're screaming into the air in the middle of a field and thinking you're changing the world or having deep conversations when you're not, you're just trolling and doing the same thing you admonish me and other commentators here for doing.

Ian McGibboney said...

When you're thrashing people for being nobody, you should at least be somebody yourself - or, at the very least, not be less than nobody.

Your words and your actions conflict, Pete. If I really was nobody, you wouldn't feel the need to spend all this time repeatedly drilling that in me. On the other hand, I've received much positive feedback over the years from people who actually know what they're talking about, regardless of their politics. It's led to more good things than you will ever know. So I think I'll get by without your support, Pete. Easily.

This "discussion" is over, Pete. If you want to go back to talking about the issues, fine. Until then, you will be ignored.