December 08, 2009
— Dave in Texas Daaaang my numbers continue to look bad. So I ain't posting them. Here's the update from Ben.
buzzion 113
superfly TNT 110
Michael in MI 108
Red State NY 108
Peoples Republic of Baltimore 108
Svenster61 107
Nam Grunt 106
Truman the Greek 106
Aewl 105
Paranoid Polly 104
Carthago Delenda Est 104
Jay in Ames 104
Moneky Sleeping 104
Speaking of bad numbers near the end of your first season...Obama job approval rating at 47%, lowest since they started with Truman.
George W. Bush, 86%
Bill Clinton, 52%
George H.W. Bush, 71%
Ronald Reagan, 49%
Jimmy Carter, 57%
Gerald Ford, 52%
Richard Nixon, 59%
Lyndon Johnson, 74%
John Kennedy, 77%
Dwight Eisenhower, 69%
Harry Truman, 49%
So I feel better now.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at
07:31 AM
| Comments (32)
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.
OMG! They're actually reporting first wanker isn't popular????
What did he do to them? Leave them off the guest list or something?
Posted by: Just a cynic.... at December 08, 2009 07:40 AM (v4UYp)
Raaacist!
Posted by: Charles Johnson's Tip Jar at December 08, 2009 07:41 AM (wnU1W)
Posted by: Just a cynic.... at December 08, 2009 07:41 AM (v4UYp)
I notice Ronald Reagan ties Truman at this point in there respective terms. I guess that shoes what a hostel pres can do to an otherwise successful administration (more-so Reagan than Truman at this point).
What would Obama's numbers look like with a hostile media? I say about 30% positive. I don't see them going any lower than that just due to the Dem Party true believers and party apparatchiks that would love him after eating a live kitten on TV, and that's about 30% of the country.
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 08, 2009 07:42 AM (H7Rlw)
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 08, 2009 07:43 AM (H7Rlw)
Posted by: Dan at December 08, 2009 07:44 AM (KZraB)
What would Obama's numbers look like with a hostile media?
20%: Hardcore marxists, complete idiots, and M'chell's staff
Posted by: dagny at December 08, 2009 07:44 AM (ZJenX)
Dunno, because he'd just be another Democrat Senator from Illinois, if that was the game.
Posted by: Tom in Korea at December 08, 2009 07:45 AM (+gX1+)
Posted by: Dan at December 08, 2009 07:46 AM (KZraB)
Posted by: Jade Sea at December 08, 2009 07:46 AM (f2QL0)
Of course, Gibbs petulant response is also a signal that Obama knows full well that he's losing the middle. As someone pointed out yesterday, he's only one point ahead of Palin in approval rating. Once that barrier is broken (and it will be) it'll be near impossible for the media to ignore Obama's slide into negative territory. Should spark quite a few animated discussions around the Christmas dinner table. I for one can't wait.
Posted by: lincolntf at December 08, 2009 07:47 AM (EJAGr)
he is about to put me to sleep.
Posted by: trailortrash at December 08, 2009 07:47 AM (2Z+7j)
I notice Ronald Reagan ties Truman at this point in there respective terms. I guess that shoes what a hostel pres can do to an otherwise successful administration (more-so Reagan than Truman at this point).
What would Obama's numbers look like with a hostile media? I say about 30% positive. I don't see them going any lower than that just due to the Dem Party true believers and party apparatchiks that would love him after eating a live kitten on TV, and that's about 30% of the country.
Well keep in mind Truman was an accidental president and had big shoes to fill after FDR. Also about one year into the Truman admin the war was over and the economy took a dip.
Also Reagans first full year ended in 1982 which had the highest unemployment since the great depression, his economic policies had not kicked in at that point.
I still think Obama is going to be a two term president. Only three times in the past 110 years have the american people voted a sitting president out of office. the others that were one term presidents left of their own free will or were assassinated.
The economy will probably be around 6 percent in 2012, which will be enough for Obama to say he saved the American economy. Also the Republicans will win the house and maybe the senate in 2010, which will moderate Obama in that same way 1994 moderated Bill Clinton thereby allowing him to win a second term. Think 2016 people.
Posted by: Ben at December 08, 2009 07:47 AM (wuv1c)
#9 bingo
With a hostile inquisitive media it would be:
Barack Obama? Never heard of 'em!
Charlie Gibson
Posted by: sherlock at December 08, 2009 07:50 AM (h6sl7)
Posted by: Robert Gibbs, Baghdad Bob Czar at December 08, 2009 07:52 AM (50S+L)
Posted by: Dan at December 08, 2009 11:46 AM (KZraB)
Inflation in the Regan administration at this time (December 1981) has been put down with some seriously stiff interest rates, that also raised the unemployment numbers and that all started under Carter. 1981 was NOT morning in America. I don't think it was until 1984 that Reagan was really out of the economic woods. I'm going off of memory and old "Life" magazines too.
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 08, 2009 07:52 AM (H7Rlw)
Posted by: Charles Johnson at December 08, 2009 07:54 AM (SqAkN)
What would Obama's numbers look like with a hostile media?
20%: Hardcore marxists, complete idiots, and M'chell's staff
LOL!
"ONLY" 20%?
But I still think the term "hostile media" is an oxymoron as long as The One is in the house.....Just like with Clinton the reporters like it when the White House can simply hand out their talking points and they don't have to be bothered with any actual "writting".....
Posted by: Just a cynic.... at December 08, 2009 07:58 AM (v4UYp)
11 Obama's a one trick one term pony (or unicorn).
I'm concerned about the "fairness" in media legislation, internet "neutrality", bailing out the newspapers, continued funding of Acorn, Obama's domestic volunteer army, the non-prosecution of the Black Panthers, "polling machine" problems as in NY 23 etc. There seems to be a lot of setting us up to kill all media except pro-Obama media, repress the normal vote, and aid voter registration and fraud. If they could mobilize major fraud while they weren't in power and didn't have the TARP slush fund for bribes, what can they do in power with unlimited money?
I think he will lose but I worried that he can't
Posted by: dagny at December 08, 2009 08:02 AM (ZJenX)
Posted by: Joe Biden at December 08, 2009 08:16 AM (DtTM9)
It's never OT to post something like that. God bless their souls and comfort their families and colleagues.
Posted by: FishFearMe at December 08, 2009 08:17 AM (4YamK)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 08, 2009 08:23 AM (WvXvd)
Plus, it makes the press conferences, foreign trips, dinner parties and fundraisers go so much more smoothly when everybody's on the same page. The press corps is made up of 90% wusses, 9% fanatics and 1% actual journalists.
Posted by: lincolntf at December 08, 2009 08:43 AM (EJAGr)
At this point I'd say that's very optimistic. The only way that happens is if we get a GOP Congress in 2010 with the cajones to ram through growth policies. Big if.
Posted by: mcassill at December 08, 2009 08:50 AM (dK24g)
Posted by: TheQuietman at December 08, 2009 08:50 AM (1Jaio)
Maybe it would help if they would...
Launch Algore out of a Clown-Cannon ?
... couldn't hurt, could sell a lot of tickets.
Posted by: Huckleberry at December 08, 2009 08:54 AM (s2bW4)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 08, 2009 08:54 AM (TrOK+)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2286 seconds, 160 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Huckleberry at December 08, 2009 07:40 AM (s2bW4)