Why Is Obama's Approval Rating Going Down?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

But this is an international effort, so that takes off some of the pressure to put troops in there.

And I don't think the American people will see not putting troops in as weak. I think that's just how hawkish Republicans will view it. After Iraq and Afghanistan, I doubt the American people really see putting troops in as strength. I think they'll see it as foolishness.

airshocker

When have UN peacekeepers done any good for a country? Aside from getting themselves killed.

The American people will see it as weakness because it undermines the very reason we chose to set up a no-fly zone. We went there as humanitarians. We can't turn around and be indifferent. That's not how America works.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

But this is an international effort, so that takes off some of the pressure to put troops in there.

And I don't think the American people will see not putting troops in as weak. I think that's just how hawkish Republicans will view it. After Iraq and Afghanistan, I doubt the American people really see putting troops in as strength. I think they'll see it as foolishness.

airshocker

When have UN peacekeepers done any good for a country? Aside from getting themselves killed.

The American people will see it as weakness because it undermines the very reason we chose to set up a no-fly zone. We went there as humanitarians. We can't turn around and be indifferent. That's not how America works.

I don't feel like researching that, but it's besides the point. My point is that the US is not shouldering most of the responsibility, so in terms of perception, it's not likely there's going to be an expectation for US troops to be in Libya.

It wasn't only us that set up the no-fly zone. It was the UN.

But anyway, what makes you think that the American people, after two wars, want us to go deep into a humanitarian effort? The public is barely supporting the limited intervention as it is.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

So what?

If we look at how he is polling across the board (through averages), it is not an all time low.

I'm not trying to say that his polling is good, but it's not radically different than what he's been getting lately.

chessmaster1989

No, you've just discovered the fact that *gasp* different polls show different results.

For reference, here's his source, which is actually a polling aggregate. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

I don't think the American public wants more troops involved in another country....LJS9502_basic

No, we don't, but we're there. So time to make lemonade. While we have the capability, I will not have the deaths of tens of thousands on my hands. That is NOT an option. This is the cost of putting our nose where it doesn';t belong, and Obama will be a coward if the situation deteriorates and he doesn't do anything about it.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

But this is an international effort, so that takes off some of the pressure to put troops in there.

And I don't think the American people will see not putting troops in as weak. I think that's just how hawkish Republicans will view it. After Iraq and Afghanistan, I doubt the American people really see putting troops in as strength. I think they'll see it as foolishness.

LJS9502_basic

When have UN peacekeepers done any good for a country? Aside from getting themselves killed.

The American people will see it as weakness because it undermines the very reason we chose to set up a no-fly zone. We went there as humanitarians. We can't turn around and be indifferent. That's not how America works.

Agreed.The public is barely supporting are limited intervention. If the best Obama can get for limited intervention is about50% approval, actually sending troops in there would be met with a considerbale amount of backlash.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I don't think the American public wants more troops involved in another country....airshocker

No, we don't, but we're there. So time to make lemonade. While we have the capability, I will not have the deaths of tens of thousands on my hands. That is NOT an option. This is the cost of putting our nose where it doesn';t belong, and Obama will be a coward if the situation deteriorates and he doesn't do anything about it.

No, we don't, but we're there. So time to make lemonade. While we have the capability, I will not have the deaths of tens of thousands on my hands. That is NOT an option. This is the cost of putting our nose where it doesn';t belong, and Obama will be a coward if the situation deteriorates and he doesn't do anything about it.airshocker

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] so it is not 47 to 47, it is not an even split, your numbers were faulty from an unknown source so i provided numbers from a known source.

surrealnumber5

No, you've just discovered the fact that *gasp* different polls show different results.

For reference, here's his source, which is actually a polling aggregate. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Fox, Rasmussen, NBC/WSJ, Pew, AP, and Quinnipac... unknown?

Look, I'm not saying that this aggregated result is more correct than the Gallup result, but to treat the Gallup result as if it were the only correct numbers is laughable. And if you don't know those pollster names I listed above, I don't think you pay much attention to polling.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] so it is not 47 to 47, it is not an even split, your numbers were faulty from an unknown source so i provided numbers from a known source.

surrealnumber5

No, you've just discovered the fact that *gasp* different polls show different results.

For reference, here's his source, which is actually a polling aggregate. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

So you say this is not SW, but then proceed to say that that GR does not trump GS? LOL.

There's no rule saying Gallup is the benchmark. And RCP does not all other poll numbers to Gallup. Rather, they throw Gallup in among other polls. It has no distinctive importance in the average.

Lastly, Real Clear Politics does not use unknown pollsters.

I've come to this conclusion... We could have any person in office, and things would still be in the crapper, thus that president... will be looked down upon... In other words, nobody is going to be able to clean this mess up, and will be talked down apon... So I don't care anymore... the future is going to be ****** here within at least 10-20 years... Maybe less.

* man typo crazy *... too much studying.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I don't think the American public wants more troops involved in another country....airshocker

No, we don't, but we're there. So time to make lemonade. While we have the capability, I will not have the deaths of tens of thousands on my hands. That is NOT an option. This is the cost of putting our nose where it doesn';t belong, and Obama will be a coward if the situation deteriorates and he doesn't do anything about it.

I don't feel like researching that, but it's besides the point. My point is that the US is not shouldering most of the responsibility, so in terms of perception, it's not likely there's going to be an expectation for US troops to be in Libya.

It wasn't only us that set up the no-fly zone. It was the UN.

But anyway, what makes you think that the American people, after two wars, want us to go deep into a humanitarian effort? The public is barely supporting the limited intervention as it is.

GreySeal9

We put our nose where it didn't belong. We should have just let the rest of the Security Council deal with this.

But if we want the job done right, American troops are far preferable to any other country.

Most people tend to be anti-incumbent/anit-establishment. Obama is now the establishment.

unneeded comment: we never should have violated that country to begin with.

surrealnumber5

I saw the need for a no-fly zone, but I would have rathered the UN do it on their own.

lol wouldn't matter if he took Gaddafi out tomorrow and democracy and peace swept over the land. I would still bet that people would criticize him for not doing that earlier. Serraph105

Eh, that's the way of the world.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I don't feel like researching that, but it's besides the point. My point is that the US is not shouldering most of the responsibility, so in terms of perception, it's not likely there's going to be an expectation for US troops to be in Libya.

It wasn't only us that set up the no-fly zone. It was the UN.

But anyway, what makes you think that the American people, after two wars, want us to go deep into a humanitarian effort? The public is barely supporting the limited intervention as it is.

airshocker

We put our nose where it didn't belong. We should have just let the rest of the Security Council deal with this.

But if we want the job done right, American troops are far preferable to any other country.

Even so, it's doubtful that Obama would get any heat from the American public for not putting in American troops. Most likely, it would be other way around. Even if we do have the best military for the job, Obama would probably get a huge backlash for putting them into Libya, especially after he said that he wouldn't.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

No, you've just discovered the fact that *gasp* different polls show different results.

For reference, here's his source, which is actually a polling aggregate. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

GreySeal9

So you say this is not SW, but then proceed to say that that GR does not trump GS? LOL.

There's no rule saying Gallup is the benchmark. And RCP does not all other poll numbers to Gallup. Rather, they throw Gallup in among other polls. It has no distinctive importance in the average.

Lastly, Real Clear Politics does not use unknown pollsters.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

unneeded comment: we never should have violated that country to begin with.

airshocker

I saw the need for a no-fly zone, but I would have rathered the UN do it on their own.

Even if that was true, it's doubtful that Obama would get any heat from the American public for not putting in American troops. Most likely, it would be other way around. Even if we do have the best military for the job, Obama would probably get a huge backlash for putting them into Libya, especially after he said that he wouldn't.

GreySeal9

Which is why he should have just let the UN security council do all the work. Libya makes ups for 2% of our imported oil. It was of no significance.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] and this is not SW and game rankings does not trump gamespot. gallup is the bench mark if you add alot of unknown sources to gallup it only makes their numbers as unreliable as everyone added to theirs.

surrealnumber5

So you say this is not SW, but then proceed to say that that GR does not trump GS? LOL.

There's no rule saying Gallup is the benchmark. And RCP does not all other poll numbers to Gallup. Rather, they throw Gallup in among other polls. It has no distinctive importance in the average.

Lastly, Real Clear Politics does not use unknown pollsters.

An example of one these pollsters with low integrity?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Even if that was true, it's doubtful that Obama would get any heat from the American public for not putting in American troops. Most likely, it would be other way around. Even if we do have the best military for the job, Obama would probably get a huge backlash for putting them into Libya, especially after he said that he wouldn't.

airshocker

Which is why he should have just let the UN security council do all the work. Libya makes ups for 2% of our imported oil. It was of no significance.

I too would have preffered that he stayed out of the conflict.

as to the tc's original question

BECAUSE HE BOWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :P

I personally dont see how anyone could approve what is going on.00-Riddick-00

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"]I personally dont see how anyone could approve what is going on.Pasta_Bear

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

So you say this is not SW, but then proceed to say that that GR does not trump GS? LOL.

There's no rule saying Gallup is the benchmark. And RCP does not all other poll numbers to Gallup. Rather, they throw Gallup in among other polls. It has no distinctive importance in the average.

Lastly, Real Clear Politics does not use unknown pollsters.

GreySeal9

An example of one these pollsters with low integrity?

[QUOTE="Pasta_Bear"][QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"]I personally dont see how anyone could approve what is going on.Serraph105

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] after seeing the polling integrity of other pollsters used here it would be safe to say, it is best to keep with gallup.

surrealnumber5

An example of one these pollsters with low integrity?

And pray tell, what about these results show low integrity?

Because the 45%-ish conservative part of the nation isn't going to approve anyway, so 47% approval is not that bad. Wasn't Bush's at 30% or so at one time?Mr_Alexander

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

An example of one these pollsters with low integrity?

GreySeal9

And pray tell, what about these results show low integrity?

Lots of unfulfilled promises. That's okay though. I don't see why anybody would care so much about approval rating when it means nothing in terms of helping the people of this country.

he said he would veto a bill that still gives military pay during shutdown that has BIPARTISAN SUPPORT

we got into an unneeded conflict in libya

If we are referring to the past few years, the wearing down of the Obama hype, the economy, the perception of broken promises of "change" and the defecit all contributed to his dropping approval rates. Oh, he is also "the man" now. We don't like "the man" in America. If we are referring to the sudden spike @ Gallup, it might be a statistical anomaly or be related to recent events such as Libya and government shutdown.

Lots of unfulfilled promises. That's okay though. I don't see why anybody would care so much about approval rating when it means nothing in terms of helping the people of this country.

Saturos3091

[QUOTE="Saturos3091"]

Lots of unfulfilled promises. That's okay though. I don't see why anybody would care so much about approval rating when it means nothing in terms of helping the people of this country.

Pasta_Bear

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MS_0407915.pdf

surrealnumber5

And pray tell, what about these results show low integrity?

What methods do you find objectionable? How do you know their specific methods of sampling and what not?Please cite from the study.

That sample size really doesn't matter that much unless it isinsufficiently low given the population parameters. Since their population parameters areRepublican primary voters in a single state, a 400 person sample size is fine if the sample is representative. Do you have any evidence that this sample is not representative?

Where does the study give any information about the age distribution within the PPP release? If merely lays out what results they got from different age groups. It is interesting to note that very young people in 18-29 range was pretty close to old people as far as the percentage of them that thought it shoud be illegal. For 18-29 YO's, 54% thought it should be illegal while 56% of 65+ up thought it should be illegal. So it's not just old people influencing the base percentages.

The study set out to get the opinions of Republican primary voters in MS and that's what it did. I fail to see the problem with it and I certainly see no evidence that it was engineered, especially since they clearly lay out their results among age groups and clearly state that their population parameters are Republican primary voters, in which case I dn't think a 400 person sample size is too small if it is a representative sample.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

And pray tell, what about these results show low integrity?

GreySeal9

What methods do you find objectionable? Please cite from the study.

That sample size really doesn't matter that much unless it isinsufficiently low given the population parameters. Since their population parameters areRepublican primary voters in a single state, a 400 sample size is fine if the sample is representative. Do you have any evidence that this sample is not representative?

Where does the study give any information about the age distribution within the PPP release? If merely lays out what results they got from different age groups. It is interesting to note that very young people in 18-29 range was pretty close to old people as far as the percentage of them that thought it shoud be illegal. For 18-29 YO's, 54% thought it should be illegal while 56% of 65+ up thought it should be illegal. So it's not just old people influencing the base percentages.

The study set out to get the opinions of Republican primary voters in MS and that's what it did. I fail to see the problem with it.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

And pray tell, what about these results show low integrity?

GreySeal9

What methods do you find objectionable? Please cite from the study.

That sample size really doesn't matter that much unless it isinsufficiently low given the population parameters. Since their population parameters areRepublican primary voters in a single state, a 400 sample size is fine if the sample is representative. Do you have any evidence that this sample is not representative?

Where does the study give any information about the age distribution within the PPP release? If merely lays out what results they got from different age groups. It is interesting to note that very young people in 18-29 range was pretty close to old people as far as the percentage of them that thought it shoud be illegal. For 18-29 YO's, 54% thought it should be illegal while 56% of 65+ up thought it should be illegal. So it's not just old people influencing the base percentages.

The study set out to get the opinions of Republican primary voters in MS and that's what it did. I fail to see the problem with it.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] the methods used, low sample size, a far from normal age distribution among the sample. if they were at all credible they would have tossed out that data redone it. any highschool stats student would know that. i would wager the poll was engineered not random.

sonicare

What methods do you find objectionable? Please cite from the study.

That sample size really doesn't matter that much unless it isinsufficiently low given the population parameters. Since their population parameters areRepublican primary voters in a single state, a 400 sample size is fine if the sample is representative. Do you have any evidence that this sample is not representative?

Where does the study give any information about the age distribution within the PPP release? If merely lays out what results they got from different age groups. It is interesting to note that very young people in 18-29 range was pretty close to old people as far as the percentage of them that thought it shoud be illegal. For 18-29 YO's, 54% thought it should be illegal while 56% of 65+ up thought it should be illegal. So it's not just old people influencing the base percentages.

The study set out to get the opinions of Republican primary voters in MS and that's what it did. I fail to see the problem with it.

That is true, but surreal was accusing them of having low integrity, and there's no evidence of such in the study and there are not very many studies that actually reveal their sampling method.

PPP is pretty well-respected as far as I know, so I give them the benefit of the doubt if I don't have any evidence that the sample is not representative.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] the methods used, low sample size, a far from normal age distribution among the sample. if they were at all credible they would have tossed out that data redone it. any highschool stats student would know that. i would wager the poll was engineered not random.

surrealnumber5

What methods do you find objectionable? Please cite from the study.

That sample size really doesn't matter that much unless it isinsufficiently low given the population parameters. Since their population parameters areRepublican primary voters in a single state, a 400 sample size is fine if the sample is representative. Do you have any evidence that this sample is not representative?

Where does the study give any information about the age distribution within the PPP release? If merely lays out what results they got from different age groups. It is interesting to note that very young people in 18-29 range was pretty close to old people as far as the percentage of them that thought it shoud be illegal. For 18-29 YO's, 54% thought it should be illegal while 56% of 65+ up thought it should be illegal. So it's not just old people influencing the base percentages.

The study set out to get the opinions of Republican primary voters in MS and that's what it did. I fail to see the problem with it.

That wasn't my thread, but I might copy/paste this exchange into that thread.

damn shame everyone can't come together and think logically for a moment... but that's too much to ask for.Pasta_Bear

Perhaps because your "logic" might not be the same as others.

I think the main reason is because people are starting to awaken and realize that Obama is not the Messiah.

moneymatterz

[QUOTE="Pasta_Bear"]damn shame everyone can't come together and think logically for a moment... but that's too much to ask for.chasingmaynard

Perhaps because your "logic" might not be the same as others.

[QUOTE="chasingmaynard"]

[QUOTE="Pasta_Bear"]damn shame everyone can't come together and think logically for a moment... but that's too much to ask for.Pasta_Bear

Perhaps because your "logic" might not be the same as others.

You are just asking the entire population to just give up on their own opinions so we can all compromise and hold hands, backing some things that certain people don't believe in whatsoever?

Why? Because the general public is stupid.

He compromises with conservatives way too much