Skip to comments.
Obama to become most unpopular president EVER so early in his presidency?
Vanity ^
| 7-30-09
| Dangus
Posted on 07/30/2009 3:26:56 PM PDT by dangus
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
1
posted on
07/30/2009 3:26:56 PM PDT
by
dangus
To: dangus
2
posted on
07/30/2009 3:30:02 PM PDT
by
DarthVader
(Liberalism is the politics of EVIL whose time of judgment has come.)
To: dangus
The rebound in Clinton’s ratings was due to the Oklahoma City bombing.
To: dangus
When did this kind of polling begin?
4
posted on
07/30/2009 3:33:22 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(The Democrat Party: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party)
To: SirJohnBarleycorn
That certainly helped. The strong economic growth brought on by the Republicans’ welfare reform, tax cuts and deregulation also helped, but the Oklahoma City bombing helped make President Clinton look like he was in charge.
I’m not sure such a disaster would help President Obama; after President Bush kept up safe for 7 1/2 years, a terrorist attack would likely be blamed on Obama’s weakness. Only a natural disaster would help Obama. Better keep Rahm Emmanuel away from the levies.
5
posted on
07/30/2009 3:33:45 PM PDT
by
dangus
(I am JimThompson)
To: dangus
Does this mean that Obama can survive his own sinking approval ratings?With ACORN all things are possible.
6
posted on
07/30/2009 3:33:58 PM PDT
by
pnh102
(Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
To: HiTech RedNeck
What kind of polling? RasmussenReports.com came out around 1999. I hesitate to use other pollsters’ “strongly disapprove” data, because that’d be a little like comparing apples to oranges, since wording is so much more important than when one simply measures approval or disapproval. But NPR’s “strongly disapprove” to “strongly approve” ration has to be at least as terrifying to Democrats as Rasmussen. Only 34% “strongly disapprove,” but only 20% “strongly approve.”
7
posted on
07/30/2009 3:37:37 PM PDT
by
dangus
(I am JimThompson)
To: dangus
What the article forgot to mention was that Clinton also won with a plurality in 1996. 2010’s senate elections seem analog to 1994. 2012’s election’s analog seems to be 1980’s analog. We all know what happened both times ;).
8
posted on
07/30/2009 3:39:39 PM PDT
by
TypeZoNegative
(Pro life & Vegan because I respect all life, Republican because our enemies don't respect ours.)
To: dangus
9
posted on
07/30/2009 3:44:04 PM PDT
by
BnBlFlag
(Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis "Ya gotta saddle up your boys; Ya gotta draw a hard line")
To: dangus
Good vanity. One thing about Clinton, though, is that in both elections Ross Perot ran.
The big question is who do the Republicans run? Despite all the blather about Zero's popularity, if the Republicans had run a decent candidate, they would have won. Clinton ran first against a wounded GHWBush. Bush was bloodied by Buchanan in the primaries and Ross Perot ran on a platform specifically designed to steal the most votes from Bush. In Clinton's second election, he ran against Bob Dole, who's campaign slogan was, "It's my turn."
Republicans cannot run lackluster aging party insiders who have no fire or vision. Six months in, there are plenty of reasons to vote against Zero. Can the Republicans give voters a reason to vote for them?
10
posted on
07/30/2009 3:44:26 PM PDT
by
Richard Kimball
(We're all criminals. They just haven't figured out what some of us have done yet.)
To: SirJohnBarleycorn
Didn’t help running Dole in 96.
11
posted on
07/30/2009 3:46:51 PM PDT
by
Sybeck1
(No teleprompters were harmed in the creation of this post.)
To: dangus
Better keep Rahm Emmanuel away from the levies.Once Rahm figures out how to work Rove's hurricane machine, coastal residents watch out!
To: pnh102
The first time an acorn goon does something stupid (which is inevitable their being goons and all) while taking the census for instance, and it hits the news, that will sink their hopes.
13
posted on
07/30/2009 3:51:30 PM PDT
by
gidget7
(Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
To: gidget7
The first time an acorn goon does something stupid ... and it hits the news, that will sink their hopes.The "hitting the news" part will never happen, at least not in the state-run media.
14
posted on
07/30/2009 3:59:34 PM PDT
by
pnh102
(Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
To: dangus
I am thinking that the Republicans had better come up with a reason to vote FOR them, otherwise what is the difference? If we have Obama care, cap and trade and a left wing “volunteer” army, they won’t have the guts to do anything about them.
15
posted on
07/30/2009 4:01:42 PM PDT
by
runninglips
(It was just time for this to come to a head.....hope we wake up soon)
To: dangus
“
Barring a surprise such as a sudden, sharp reversal in the rising unemployment rate, the Republicans will gain plenty of seats to block a Democratic agenda; they only need 40 in the Senate” What about the House?
Do you have any polls, predictions for that?
To: Richard Kimball
“
Despite all the blather about Zero's popularity, if the Republicans had run a decent candidate, they would have won” No question Juan McCain was about the worst candidate the Republicans could have put up.
It wasn't so much that conservatives were voting FOR McCain, conservatives were voting AGINST 0bama and for Sarah Palin. McCain by himself, certainly deserved to lose.
To: dangus
Clinton may have been reelected but the Dems lost control of Congress and he was impeached. I’ll take an Obama reelection under those conditions.
18
posted on
07/30/2009 4:16:56 PM PDT
by
kabar
To: dangus
"That certainly helped. The strong economic growth brought on by the Republicans welfare reform, tax cuts and deregulation also helped, but the Oklahoma City bombing helped make President Clinton look like he was in charge."
There were several factors, among which was that he was successful in painting his opponents as solely driven my personal animosity towards him. The Clinton's played "the politics of personal destruction" card very effectively.
19
posted on
07/30/2009 4:24:42 PM PDT
by
rob777
(Personal Responsibility is the Price of Freedom)
To: DarthVader; freekitty; sheik yerbouty; Nachum; justiceseeker93; unkus; flat; 2ndDivisionVet; ...
His Socialist cohorts like Pelosi, Reid, Babs Boxer, Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank et al all must go down with him. They’re all in this disastrous plot together.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson