Obama's rating: Strong. But Average. And Way Divided.

[Dancing Mustard]

*Tears of laughter stream down face*

[black elk speaks]

*Tears of laughter stream down face*

Yes, you pee's stay on the left side of the pod and I think that we can all get along just swimmingly.

I liked you better DM, when you were banned.

[Dancing Mustard]

*Angry grunting, of marginal utility or effect*

Yeah sure, whatever.

[black elk speaks]

*Angry grunting, of marginal utility or effect*

*masturbates to the site of his own posts... constructs no real basis for any sound argument for why he believes in socialism, and lastly, a nice ~slap on the ass where the door hits him on his way out!*

b-bye!

[Dancing Mustard]

*Angry grunting, of marginal utility or effect*

*Bones your mother, then does doughnuts in his Lambo out in the parking lot while funky people applaud and swoon in wonder at his majesty*

*Gets angrier. Runs out of ideas. Copies what DM did better. Cries softly to self*

The sincerest form of flattery I hear...

[PopeBenXVI]

If they don't ban him I could excommunicate him for you BE? He could still talk though...I guess we would just have to burn him at the stake then. PARTY TIME!!!

[Backglass]

If they don't ban him I could excommunicate him for you BE? He could still talk though...I guess we would just have to burn him at the stake then. PARTY TIME!!!

No need. You see, BES himself has been banned for being a multi.

Funny how that works.

[PopeBenXVI]

no kidding huh? Well if he is guilty then he deserves it. How do you find that stuff out? I don't use the site much more than to play

[Snorri1234]

no kidding huh? Well if he is guilty then he deserves it. How do you find that stuff out? I don't use the site much more than to play

Well a multi popped up and the hunters said it was his. They don't tell the details but I don't see a reason to doubt them. They are pretty efficient at finding multis.

[PopeBenXVI]

I ment how did you find out or where do you go to read about that?

[got tonkaed]

Cheating and Abuse reports forum.

[DaGip]

I ment how did you find out or where do you go to read about that?

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=71601

If you got a snoopy nose, just thumb through Cheating and Abuse forum every once in a while to get the gist of rumors for the day or click on the Cheating and Abuse CLOSED REPORTS link.

[nagerous]

merge all the shit here!

[spurgistan]

merge all the shit here!

Do it.

[GabonX]

There are a couple of data points worth keeping in mind as we await President Obama’s address to the nation tonight - and as we digest an aide's claim today, as Jake Tapper reports, that his strong approval rating is "earned." One, while his rating is high, it’s also dead average for a new president. The other is the impressive partisanship beneath it.

We have approval ratings for each of the last nine elected presidents after their first month in office, back to Dwight Eisenhower. (We’re leaving Johnson and Ford aside.) There’s been a healthy range, from a low of 55 percent for George W. Bush after the disputed election of 2000 to a high of 76 percent for his father 12 years earlier. (I’m using ABC/Post polls since Reagan, Gallup previously).

But the average? Sixty-seven percent. And Obama’s? Sixty-eight percent, as we reported in our new poll yesterday. His initial rating, then, is strong – but it’s also generally typical for a new guy.

An increasing factor, though, is partisanship. I’ve previously described a steadily rising correlation between political party allegiance and ideology over the past generation. It shows up in presidential approval, too. The gap between a president’s rating in his own party vs. the out party has been markedly wider for the last three officeholders compared with their six elected predecessors.

Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were the last two presidents of the less-partisan era. Reagan started with 89 percent approval among Republicans, 71 percent among independents and 56 percent among Democrats. Bush’s first-month approval ratings from these groups were 90, 74 and 64 percent, respectively. Those are 18- and 33-point gaps for Reagan, 16- and 26-point gaps for Bush.

That changed with Bill Clinton: He started with 86 percent approval from Democrats, but just 59 percent from independents and 40 percent from Republicans – gaps of 27 and 46 points, respectively. Then George W. Bush – 86 percent in his party, but dropping to 54 percent among independents (-32 points) and 37 percent among Democrats, 49 points lower than in his political base.

And now there’s Obama, who’s made reaching across party lines a point of principle in his presidency, with little to show for it so far. After a month in the hot seat, 90 percent of Democrats approve of his work, dropping to 67 percent of independents and 37 percent of Republicans. The 53-point difference between Democrats and Republicans in assessing Obama is numerically the biggest in data back to Eisenhower, albeit within sampling tolerances of the gap for George W. Bush.

There are substantive reasons for these differences; Obama’s staked his economic program on a massive infusion of federal dollars, and Republicans are pretty much constitutionally skeptical of the government’s ability to spend money wisely or well, at least on social programs. They’re also especially concerned about the ballooning deficit.

This doesn’t mean there’s no potential upside in Obama’s at least trying to reach across the aisle. Two-thirds of Americans say they’d rather see politicians try to cooperate across party lines, even if that means compromising on important issues. (But likely not if it means compromising on core values, as the message massager John Russonello aptly points out.) And Obama, in our poll, gets credit for seeking compromise in a way the Republicans in Congress don’t. That’s likely helping him among independents, at least as compared with George W. Bush, as the table below shows.

Nonetheless, the bottom line is the same as I suggested shortly after Inauguration Day. Reaching for bipartisanship is all well and good. Actually achieving it, given the sharp and substantive divisions that undergird partisan sentiments, is another issue entirely.

There's a good grid of presidential approval ratings at the bottom of the article on the site:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/200 ... -aver.html

[spurgistan]

AAAHHH!! People who have been told to hope Obama's policies fail have less-than-favorable views of his effectiveness!! RUN TO THE CHOPPPAAAA!!

[luns101]

We should do shots every time Obama says, "I inherited this situation", "failed policies of the past 8 years", "we can't continue to..." or some combination of those. Some friends of mine who are Democrats used to do the same thing whenever Bush gave a state of the union or joint session of Congress speech.

[pimpdave]

We should do shots every time Obama says, "I inherited this situation", "failed policies of the past 8 years", "we can't continue to..." or some combination of those. Some friends of mine who are Democrats used to do the same thing whenever Bush gave a state of the union or joint session of Congress speech.

But certainly not with those same words or phrases...

Were there bonus points awarded everytime Bush let something retarded slip out of his mouth, like "decider", or something else equally mortifyingly evident that he never got off the sauce...

[GabonX]

We should do shots every time Obama says, "I inherited this situation", "failed policies of the past 8 years", "we can't continue to..." or some combination of those. Some friends of mine who are Democrats used to do the same thing whenever Bush gave a state of the union or joint session of Congress speech.

Bottoms up!

[luns101]

We should do shots every time Obama says, "I inherited this situation", "failed policies of the past 8 years", "we can't continue to..." or some combination of those. Some friends of mine who are Democrats used to do the same thing whenever Bush gave a state of the union or joint session of Congress speech.

But certainly not with those same words or phrases...

Were there bonus points awarded everytime Bush let something retarded slip out of his mouth, like "decider", or something else equally mortifyingly evident that he never got off the sauce...

LOL! No, but they did have a grid set up with catch phrases that he used a lot back then. I can't remember how the game worked out exactly, but it sort of reminded me of one of those grids that people use to predict the score at the end of each quarter of the Super Bowl. If you owned a square with that phrase, you had to drink.

Bush wasn't the most articulate of people, but the whole idea that he has low a IQ is a myth.

[spurgistan]

We should do shots every time Obama says, "I inherited this situation", "failed policies of the past 8 years", "we can't continue to..." or some combination of those. Some friends of mine who are Democrats used to do the same thing whenever Bush gave a state of the union or joint session of Congress speech.

But certainly not with those same words or phrases...

Were there bonus points awarded everytime Bush let something retarded slip out of his mouth, like "decider", or something else equally mortifyingly evident that he never got off the sauce...

LOL! No, but they did have a grid set up with catch phrases that he used a lot back then. I can't remember how the game worked out exactly, but it sort of reminded me of one of those grids that people use to predict the score at the end of each quarter of the Super Bowl. If you owned a square with that phrase, you had to drink.

Bush wasn't the most articulate of people, but the whole idea that he has low a IQ is a myth.

True. I would say "chronic underachiever, and way too easily bored to be POTUS," but the man was smarter than the popular conception of him. Which basically says nothing.

[GabonX]

While he certainly was not the best President we ever had, I find it a bit difficult to call anyone who is elected President on two seperate occasions, or even becomes President, a "chronic under achiever."

[got tonkaed]

While he certainly was not the best President we ever had, I find it a bit difficult to call anyone who is elected President on two seperate occasions, or even becomes President, a "chronic under achiever."

while you probably would have a hard time justifying anyone elected to such an office as an underachiever in general, the question should rather be raised...did he underachieve as a relative to his position.

[GabonX]

While he certainly was not the best President we ever had, I find it a bit difficult to call anyone who is elected President on two seperate occasions, or even becomes President, a "chronic under achiever."

while you probably would have a hard time justifying anyone elected to such an office as an underachiever in general, the question should rather be raised...did he underachieve as a relative to his position.

I think that's a more fair question than the earlier assertion. We won't be able to accurately answer it for years to come. We know that he stopped a number of terrorist plots within the United States but the number of them and how imminent they were is currently clasified.

To be fair, while it took longer than it should have, he did leave Iraq in better shape than it's been for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

[got tonkaed]

I believe the history argument is somewhat weak. Yes in the most perfect of analysis it will require some time in order to ascertain the positives and negatives of some of the actions taken by the president. However we do not act in social vaccums. Nor does it require a brillant observer to see the immediate outcomes of many actions and the potential for negative externalities to many a decision. While of course it is very possible that history will paint the previous president in a kinder light than his contemporaries, its also quite possible the continued efforts of the Iraqi people will make the former president look better than he really was.

Also in terms of middle east policy, i believe its a fairly shortsighted individual who could claim that the current state of Iraq serves the US national interest any better than the previous status quo. You could make Sharanskyesque arguments if youd like, but as far as the basic foreign policy goals goal, it doesnt do nearly as much as more kind examinations of his foreign policy will allow.