Obama's poll numbers are below those of George W. Bush at same stage of presidency

So the last resort is to compare poll numbers 7 weeks into a presidency. What a relevant discussion. When Obama's numbers are high they don't mean anything. When they match Bush's it must mean something. Okaaaay. I guess you argue whichever side is convenient for you. Expecting consistency from you chickentexx is too much to ask for.

Bush had a decent honeymoon before he tanked. This means absolutely nothing. I gave Bush 2 full years before I turned on him and will give Obama the same.

 

How convenient!

 

I think the popularity had to due with Bush's sense of humor.



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nKX6luiMINQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nKX6luiMINQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

Context...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/yes-obamas-approval-ratings-are.html

 

how is this any different than the constant bombardment on Bushes polling numbers during his administration? With headlines such as "lowest ratings for a president ever" and "worst president ever", im not sure how you can throw stones at this. But you are right, EVERYONE argues whichever sides is convenient for them, not just the OP or any other party.

These results don't surprise me at all. I actually foresee his numbers completely tanking like that of the '06 congress. The Democratic party has been pushing this whole notion that they are going to be the savior of the economy. The reality of the situation is that the economy is not going to be fixed anytime soon. People have short attention spans and only listen for what they want to hear. What they have perceived to hear is that the Republican party will only continue on this path of destruction and Obama will start providing millions of jobs with his Great Spending Spree. All this has done is made the market more uncertain and further laying off more people. (If 83% is even close to the ballpark for uncertain consumers, then yes, that is a big problem). You want further proof he's flailing? How many times have we heard Obama say its only going to get worse before it gets better?

Fundamentally sound? Temporary mess? I really expect Obama, at worst, last longer than this before the people started to see the true picture of this situation.

Now before people start screaming "you stupid, ignorant republican", understand that I do not want a complete collapse of support for Obama. I never wanted it for Bush nor for Obama or any other president. I do not want to see this continuous push for bigger government/socialistic ideas, but a complete lack of support for Obama only means that the Republican party will not reform. BOTH parties are a complete mess right now. We need true leaders to step up to the plate and less of these pseudo-reform politicans.

 

The difference is Bush had been in office two terms, led the country into a royal mess and had historically low approval ratings. If Obama's poll numbers break new ground like Bush's did, let's talk. But it's complete nonsense to make hay that Obama's very high numbers are moderating after 7 weeks. Duh, of course they would. It's typical chickentexx nonsense.

Think about it: Poll numbers after 7 weeks.

 

G.W poll numbers started to drop when America found out that he was a war criminal and his vice president was a hit man.I doubt Obama will have this problem so his numbers should be ok in the long run. I didn't vote for Bush, but I can honestly say I didn't want him to fail.

 

Bush is given 8 years, Obama is given less than 8 weeks.

 

Is this a joke, or are you just another Obama supporter with no sense of history? After the hotly contested 2000 election, which the libs took all the way to the Supreme Court, things were extremely bitter. Bush had zero honeymoon period, and the media gave him no favors. Compare that to today's media, who sniffs Obama's jock strap on a daily basis and does his dirty work by attacking those who have contrary opinions to Obama. Look at the hit jobs on Palin, Joe the Plumber, McCain's wife, Trig Palin WHO HAS DOWNS, and now Cramer. There is no depth too low for the media to stoop to give Barack a handy.

Honestly, the media views Obama's Presidency as a way to correct an ancient wrong -- discrimination against blacks/slavery. Because of that, they are very hesitant to criticize him. The media had no such problem with Bush.

 

Uh. I think there is a protocol to naming cases. You might want to look that up and consider why the case was called Bush v. Gore.

 

He's bringing up the fact that it wouldn't have even been in the court system if it weren't for Gore...I think.

 

Because that came at the end of 8 years of misrule.


Get a clue.

 

I don't want to fight this again, but Bush took it into Federal courts.

 

Which, like most of what you post, isn't worth a giant bucket of spit. The reason Bush's presidency was a catastrophic disaster and what made him one of the worst presidents in history, wasn't his poll numbers 7 weeks in, it was the remaining 7 years and 10 months. You know, when he actually affected things.

 

The person that brings it to court is named first. The 2nd person is who the case is against.

 

Congress number are way up, but I didn't see any wingnuts mention that fact.


We finally have a president who comes to work everyday and who is able to mulitask. I'm really glad McCain isn't our president, because he would've probably kicked the bucket by now due to stress.