[img]http://i.imgur.com/unj46o1.png[/img]
[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/terrible-news-for-trump-obama-s-approval-rating-is-suddenly-surging-a6958581.html[/url]
[quote]For the first time in two years, a majority of Americans approve of Barack Obama’s presidency.
In the past three months, as attention has turned to the battle to replace him, the percentage of Americans who approve of the President has risen from 44-45 per cent to 49-50 per cent.
And in just the past month approval for him has risen from 46-47 per cent. The black line below is Obama's approval rating; the red line is his disapproval rating.[/quote]
[url]http://www.vox.com/latest-news/2016/3/29/11326606/campaign-americans-like-obama[/url]
[quote]This is potentially very significant for the November election because much research, including my own, has found that the president’s approval rating is a key predictor of the election results even when the president is not on the ballot. Thus a very unpopular George W. Bush probably doomed John McCain to defeat in 2008 no matter what happened during the campaign that year. A 53-44 approval-disapproval balance would give Democrats a good shot at keeping the White House even if they were not running against a badly divided Republican Party led by perhaps the most unpopular nominee in decades.[/quote]
I feel like this is because we're looking at the front runners for the next election and realizing that what we've got now isn't so bad.
I'd take a third Obama term over Hilary anyday
Obama was a great president. Without the historically least cooperative Congress of all time he would probably be remembered as one of the best presidents in the last few decades.
ATM nothing is happening with him. That's when ratings go up.
[editline]30th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Duck M.;50038118]Obama was a great president. Without the historically least cooperative Congress of all time he would probably be remembered as one of the best presidents in the last few decades.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure how anyone can believe this. He presided over a historically slow economic recovery, disastrous foreign policy (Russian aggression, the rise of ISIS, and the fall of quite a few previously stable nations into Islamic control), got a healthcare plan passed that barely anyone is happy with (even with total control of congress), had racial tensions get worse than they've been in a while, etc.
What exactly has he done well?
[QUOTE=Duck M.;50038118]Obama was a great president. Without the historically least cooperative Congress of all time he would probably be remembered as one of the best presidents in the last few decades.[/QUOTE]
I think if Bernie was president, he would be remembered as the "best president" on virtue of action. Obama was still a corporate-liberal.
His policy platform was "hope & change" — with very little direct-action manifesting other than his half-assed health care law. It is not even free.
If Bernie became president, the social reforms he has promised (that Obama has not other than vague "hope & change") would lead him to being remembered as the best president in the last few decades. Not the first African-American president, instead, but the first-Socialist president.
When you compare what Obama has promised in 2008 and Bernie has promised — you realize what Obama has said under the fine-print was very little and mostly rhetoric. Obama was a very good public-speaker — an orator — Obama was black and Obama promised "change". Bernie Sanders is promising an array of more concrete policies and plans than "hope"
In summary, if Bernie Sanders became president — he would overshadow Obama in history. History would remember Bernie Sanders, not Obama. With Sanders' loss an inevitability, I can only hope the future does not take Obama's timid, compromising and centrist nature as inspiration for future presidents.
Obama was not the revolutionary 2008 president we were promised.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50038139]I think if Bernie was president, he would be remembered as the "best president" on virtue of action. Obama was still a corporate-liberal.
His policy platform was "hope & change" — with very little direct-action manifesting other than his half-assed health care law. It is not even free.
If Bernie became president, the social reforms he has promised (that Obama has not other than vague "hope & change") would lead him to being remembered as the best president in the last few decades. Not the first African-American president.[/QUOTE]
As he got absolutely nothing passed.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;50037658]I'd take a third Obama term over Hilary anyday[/QUOTE]
We thought the same at one point, then Harper came along and shit on everyone.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50038139]I think if Bernie was president, he would be remembered as the "best president" on virtue of action. Obama was still a corporate-liberal.
His policy platform was "hope & change" — with very little direct-action manifesting other than his half-assed health care law. It is not even free.
If Bernie became president, the social reforms he has promised (that Obama has not other than vague "hope & change") would lead him to being remembered as the best president in the last few decades. Not the first African-American president, instead, but the first-Socialist president.
When you compare what Obama has promised in 2008 and Bernie has promised — you realize what Obama has said under the fine-print was very little and mostly rhetoric. Obama was a very good public-speaker — an orator — Obama was black and Obama promised "change". Bernie Sanders is promising an array of more concrete policies and plans than "hope"
In summary, if Bernie Sanders became president — he would overshadow Obama in history. History would remember Bernie Sanders, not Obama. With Sanders' loss an inevitability, I can only hope the future does not take Obama's timid, compromising and centrist nature as inspiration for future presidents.
Obama was not the revolutionary 2008 president we were promised.[/QUOTE]
None of Bernie's revolutionary social reforms would pass Congress either
Youd either get nothing or horribly neutered versions of what was originally promised. Sound familiar?
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50038139]I think if Bernie was president, he would be remembered as the "best president" on virtue of action. Obama was still a corporate-liberal.
His policy platform was "hope & change" — with very little direct-action manifesting other than his half-assed health care law. It is not even free.
If Bernie became president, the social reforms he has promised (that Obama has not other than vague "hope & change") would lead him to being remembered as the best president in the last few decades. Not the first African-American president, instead, but the first-Socialist president.
When you compare what Obama has promised in 2008 and Bernie has promised — you realize what Obama has said under the fine-print was very little and mostly rhetoric. Obama was a very good public-speaker — an orator — Obama was black and Obama promised "change". Bernie Sanders is promising an array of more concrete policies and plans than "hope"
In summary, if Bernie Sanders became president — he would overshadow Obama in history. History would remember Bernie Sanders, not Obama. With Sanders' loss an inevitability, I can only hope the future does not take Obama's timid, compromising and centrist nature as inspiration for future presidents.
Obama was not the revolutionary 2008 president we were promised.[/QUOTE]
Obama had a lot of good ideas, too. Though the problem was that that the opposite party for the entirety of his two terms vehemently opposed anything and everything he proposed, regardless of concessions he made to try to make the legislation more centrist and bipartisan.
The Republicans will control at minimum the House in a worst case scenario, which is still enough for them to block all legislation. What reason is there to think they'd do anything different if Bernie was president instead? Bernie can and may very well have great reformative ideas, but as long as the increasingly polarized Republican party has a majority in any chamber of Congress, those ideas will be wasted.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;50038167]None of Bernie's revolutionary social reforms would pass Congress either
Youd either get nothing or horribly neutered versions of what was originally promised. Sound familiar?[/QUOTE]
Obama did not risk much. He never expressed a lot to risk.
For every 2 policies that Obama pledged to take to Congress, Bernie has 15 more. That is the difference. Obama was not merely "crippled" by an inactive Congress of which the Democrats retained a super-majority for several years — giving Obama a chance to pass legislation — but by the fact he never had any concrete policy transformations than vague "hope"
Health care and Guantanamo was as far as Obama got. Didn't even try afterwards. He would instead — sign bills like the NDAA, increase marijuana raids, and support the TPP.
After the semi-health care law and the measures to close Guantanamo — that was it. The most liberal aspect of Obama was done and he felt it was necessary to rest instead of fighting Congress once more.
A president's test of determination is how often they are willing to fight Congress. Obama has shown that he was not. He simply threw the towel too early.
[editline]30th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Maegord;50038175]Obama had a lot of good ideas, too. Though the problem was that that the opposite party for the entirety of his two terms vehemently opposed anything and everything he proposed, regardless of concessions he made to try to make the legislation more centrist and bipartisan.
The Republicans will control at minimum the House in a worst case scenario, which is still enough for them to block all legislation. What reason is there to think they'd do anything different if Bernie was president instead? Bernie can and may very well have great reformative ideas, but as long as the increasingly polarized Republican party has a majority in any chamber of Congress, those ideas will be wasted.[/QUOTE]
Obama never PUSHED anything to be blocked. That is the difference between Obama and Bernie. Obama did like two things and gave up. Bernie has already gone on the record of naming a dozen things he will fight Congress with.
111th United States Congress — The Democrats had a majority. Obama had a chance to pass legislation.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;50038167]None of Bernie's revolutionary social reforms would pass Congress either
Youd either get nothing or horribly neutered versions of what was originally promised. Sound familiar?[/QUOTE]
Thing with the grassroots campaign Sanders is running is that he's actively trying to get millions upon millions of people excited about and involved in politics. If millions of people finally vote for representatives with truly progressive and American values, then he can get shit done by literally hollowing out the system itself and modernizing it from the far right shithole it is right now.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50038198]Obama did not risk much. He never expressed a lot to risk.
For every 2 policies that Obama pledged to take to Congress, Bernie has 15 more. That is the difference. Obama was not merely "crippled" by an inactive Congress of which the Democrats retained a super-majority for several years — giving Obama a chance to pass legislation — but by the fact he never had any concrete policy transformations than vague "hope"
Health care and Guantanamo was as far as Obama got. Didn't even try afterwards. He would instead — sign bills like the NDAA, increase marijuana raids, and support the TPP.
After the semi-health care law and the measures to close Guantanamo — that was it. The most liberal aspect of Obama was done and he felt it was necessary to rest instead of fighting Congress once more.
A president's test of determination is how often they are willing to fight Congress. Obama has shown that he was not. He simply threw the towel too early.
[editline]30th March 2016[/editline]
Obama never PUSHED anything to be blocked. That is the difference between Obama and Bernie. Obama did like two things and gave up. Bernie has already gone on the record of naming a dozen things he will fight Congress with.
111th United States Congress — The Democrats had a majority. Obama had a chance to pass legislation.[/QUOTE]
Obama only had a necessary super majority for a single one year from 2009 to 2010, due to the death of Senator Kennedy, and the special election that somehow resulted in a Republican winning the seat. That single year that he an ability to actually pass legislation he had to focus on halting the ever deepening recession and try to bring things back, during which he passed the Stimulus. And even while dealing with that, he still got a number of other things done, most notably getting the Affordable Care Act through the senate so the Republicans couldn't have stopped that too when they got rid of the Democrat's super majority. Obama had exactly one year minus the time it took to deal with the recession to get anything done before the Republicans began denying everything he tried to do. It's a little unfair to blame him for that.
And how was Obama supposed to 'fight' Congress exactly? And how would Bernie do it any differently? You can try to play the moderate and make concessions and extend a grapevine to the opposing party, Obama certainly tried that for a couple years at first: But that got nowhere. You can play it hard line and try to get the country outraged and use public sentiment to force the opposition into conceding, Obama tried that too. None of those strategies worked, because at the end of the day, the Republican base and leadership doesn't want anything that is remotely progressive, or even touched by a liberal at all, and will deny all grapevines. And they will only get pissed off and more self-righteous and partisan if you try to rally public opinion by pointing out what they're doing is bullshit. What exactly could Bernie or Hillary for that matter hope to do scare a stonewalling Republican party into actually cooperating for once?
I apologize if my tone comes off slightly irate, but there really isn't anything that can be done for the next Congressional term if the Republican party decides again that they don't want to actually do their job and just sit on their asses for another term. What needs to be done for the president, whoever it may be, to actually get something done would be to get a super majority again in Congress, and that can't possibly be done this election, there isn't enough House seats endangered for that to work. It requires making wins in 2016, and ultimately not accomplishing anything but playing to public opinion for the next election season or two until you can force the Republicans out.
Probably because he's actually doing stuff meanwhile everybody is looking at the two possibilities next and panacing
Seriously both Trump and Hillary will go down in history of having the lowest approval of a president elect
[QUOTE=Sableye;50038418]Probably because he's actually doing stuff meanwhile everybody is looking at the two possibilities next and panacing[/QUOTE]
You mean that he's doing absolutely nothing. When things are quiet numbers go up.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50038428]You mean that he's doing absolutely nothing. When things are quite numbers go up.[/QUOTE]
"doing nothing" while being the president is actually doing a lot
[QUOTE=EcksDee;50038325]Thing with the grassroots campaign Sanders is running is that he's actively trying to get millions upon millions of people excited about and involved in politics. If millions of people finally vote for representatives with truly progressive and American values, then he can get shit done by literally hollowing out the system itself and modernizing it from the far right shithole it is right now.[/QUOTE]
You'd hope so right? I can almost guarantee though that turnout will stay low in local representative elections though, it's just a foregone conclusion. I do hope otherwise though and I'm glad that people are getting more invested in politics, but investment != actually voting. I know lots of people that are invested with Bernie and politics that still didnt go out and vote.
[QUOTE=Jund;50038499]"doing nothing" while being the president is actually doing a lot[/QUOTE]
lmfao what, this is hilariously wrong
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;50038629]lmfao what, this is hilariously wrong[/QUOTE]
do you think if we don't have a president then the country will function as normal? maintaining our way of life for 8 years is a big job
if the president did absolutely nothing the country would fall apart in a day
[QUOTE=Jund;50038666]do you think if we don't have a president then the country will function as normal? maintaining our way of life for 8 years is a big job
if the president did absolutely nothing the country would fall apart in a day[/QUOTE]
When a person says that a president is doing "nothing" it's obviously meant relative to other presidents and/or other times in their presidency. Clearly they aren't literally doing nothing.
i wouldn't say he's a great president. i wouldn't even say he's a good president, compared to all the others
but saying that he's doing nothing is bullshit
[editline]31st March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;50038671]When a person says that a president is doing "nothing" it's obviously meant relative to other presidents and/or other times in their presidency. Clearly they aren't literally doing nothing.[/QUOTE]
yes and his approval is increasing because he showed that he can handle the presidency while there's a mountain of doubt on the two front-runners
when sableye said he was doing stuff he meant he was doing what a president is supposed to, and you responded saying that he was doing absolutely nothing
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;50037658]I'd take a third Obama term over Hilary anyday[/QUOTE]
if you want to further the police state, then yea by all means he's the president for you!
not only has he appointed a former monsanto executive to the head of the FDA, but he also drafted his healthcare bill with the guy who spent almost 2 decades lobbying against socialized medicine for the big pharmaceuticals! He's supported the NDAA, allowed drone strikes to target Americans, extended the Bush tax cuts, NEVER CLOSED GUANTANAMO BAY, expanded federal defense spending, and even amassed 37.6 million dollars from the financial industry. His policies stand just about where Mitt Romney's were, so would you like to reconsider?
Hes been a mediocre and a disappointment but not overly bad, his foreign policy sucked but honestly the American people aren't ready to jump into another war or conflict over ISIS after all we've been through and its doubtful that will change for a while.
At least we got Tom Wheeler and a minimum wage increase :v:
[QUOTE=space1;50039847]if you want to further the police state, then yea by all means he's the president for you!
not only has he appointed a former monsanto executive to the head of the FDA, but he also drafted his healthcare bill with the guy who spent almost 2 decades lobbying against socialized medicine for the big pharmaceuticals! He's supported the NDAA, allowed drone strikes to target Americans, extended the Bush tax cuts, NEVER CLOSED GUANTANAMO BAY, expanded federal defense spending, and even amassed 37.6 million dollars from the financial industry. His policies stand just about where Mitt Romney's were, so would you like to reconsider?[/QUOTE]
I'm 100% certain that given more time bush would have used drones against terrorists who are us citizens, he has tried to close Guantanamo but Congress passes a measure every year blocking it, as it is he has moved a lot of the prisoners to the US which is basically the same thing, the bush tax cuts lapsed years ago, and as far as expanded defense spending that's sort of inaccurate since he signed the Republican mandated sequester and has canceled a lot of boondoggles the military was buying for Iraq and afghanistan
[QUOTE=sgman91;50038428]You mean that he's doing absolutely nothing. When things are quiet numbers go up.[/QUOTE]
You said that already but it doesn't change the fact that generally Americans approve of the job he is doing. It really boils your piss, doesn't it?
[QUOTE=sgman91;50038126]ATM nothing is happening with him. That's when ratings go up.
[editline]30th March 2016[/editline]
I'm not sure how anyone can believe this. He presided over a historically slow economic recovery, disastrous foreign policy (Russian aggression, the rise of ISIS, and the fall of quite a few previously stable nations into Islamic control), got a healthcare plan passed that barely anyone is happy with (even with total control of congress), had racial tensions get worse than they've been in a while, etc.
What exactly has he done well?[/QUOTE]
A slow recovery of economy, bin laden, at least put in a health care system, and removal of the Cuban embargo.
Good enough
[QUOTE=sgman91;50038126]ATM nothing is happening with him. That's when ratings go up.
[editline]30th March 2016[/editline]
I'm not sure how anyone can believe this. He presided over a historically slow economic recovery, disastrous foreign policy (Russian aggression, the rise of ISIS, and the fall of quite a few previously stable nations into Islamic control), got a healthcare plan passed that barely anyone is happy with (even with total control of congress), had racial tensions get worse than they've been in a while, etc.
What exactly has he done well?[/QUOTE]
Everything you mentioned was caused by the previous president. Really not sure how any of this is directly his fault.
[QUOTE=Karmah;50040029]A slow recovery of economy, bin laden, at least put in a health care system, and removal of the Cuban embargo.
Good enough[/QUOTE]
Also improved relations with Iran, but I guess we need to be hardliners because that's worked so well before
[QUOTE=Jewish Paladin;50037626]I feel like this is because we're looking at the front runners for the next election and realizing that what we've got now isn't so bad.[/QUOTE]
Remember that "Miss me yet?" billboard with bush on it?
Can't wait to see Obama's smug grin on it
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50041119]Remember that "Miss me yet?" billboard with bush on it?
Can't wait to see Obama's smug grin on it[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/zFG87bu.jpg[/IMG]
Like this?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
