Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Presidents' Job Approval Ratings; a historical graph
Topic Started: Jan 20 2009, 07:06 AM (378 Views)
plays88keys
Pisa-Carp
Evidently, Bush is *not* the worst US President in modern memory, at least according to this:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html
You can never get enough of what you don't need to make you happy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Clearly the key to popularity is to get a BJ from some friendly girl, lie about it, and then have a bunch of self-righteous knobheads try and kick you out of your job.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
big al
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
That's an interesting chart in that it contains enough data to promote speculation without being so definitive as to stifle almost any conclusion that might be reached. I noticed that Bill Clinton was the only post-WWII president whose approval ratings were higher at the end of his presidency than when he started. Reagan came close.

Big Al
Location: Western PA

"jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen."
-bachophile
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Who gives a carp about popularity? Did he do the job is what is important. I would submit that a great many Americans are not very well equipped to judge that with any accuracy.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Mikhailoh
Jan 20 2009, 08:12 AM
Who gives a carp about popularity? Did he do the job is what is important. I would submit that a great many Americans are not very well equipped to judge that with any accuracy.
And yet you let them vote.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
big al
Jan 20 2009, 08:06 AM
I noticed that Bill Clinton was the only post-WWII president whose approval ratings were higher at the end of his presidency than when he started.
I noticed that too. :thumb:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mikhailoh
Jan 20 2009, 08:12 AM
Who gives a carp about popularity? Did he do the job is what is important. I would submit that a great many Americans are not very well equipped to judge that with any accuracy.
Yeah... I've always felt them many of you misunderstood Carter. :shrug:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
John D'Oh
Jan 20 2009, 08:25 AM
Mikhailoh
Jan 20 2009, 08:12 AM
Who gives a carp about popularity? Did he do the job is what is important. I would submit that a great many Americans are not very well equipped to judge that with any accuracy.
And yet you let them vote.
Don't get me started.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
Axtremus
Jan 20 2009, 08:44 AM
big al
Jan 20 2009, 08:06 AM
I noticed that Bill Clinton was the only post-WWII president whose approval ratings were higher at the end of his presidency than when he started.
I noticed that too. :thumb:
I noticed that he started with low approval ratings.
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I also noted that other than Truman, Bush enjoyed the highest popularity.

Still, I agree wholeheartedly with Mik. Not only is popularity a poor judge of a sucessful presidency, but the public is poorly situated to judge success and their reasons for giving approval are often uninformed and misguied, IMO.

(edit: Oh, and Eisenhower was the only president ever to stay above a 50% approval rating, and that despite his fondness for golf vacations).
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Jan 20 2009, 08:45 AM
Mikhailoh
Jan 20 2009, 08:12 AM
Who gives a carp about popularity? Did he do the job is what is important. I would submit that a great many Americans are not very well equipped to judge that with any accuracy.
Yeah... I've always felt them many of you misunderstood Carter. :shrug:
Do you mean the Carter who inherited a misery index of 12.7 and drove it up to 21.7?

The same guy who so trashed America's international stature that we were held hostage for 444 days by a group of students?

The guy who caved in to the No Nukes propaganda after Three Mile Island, and ended America's best chance for energy independence?

That one?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Red Rice
Jan 20 2009, 08:47 AM
Axtremus
Jan 20 2009, 08:44 AM
big al
Jan 20 2009, 08:06 AM
I noticed that Bill Clinton was the only post-WWII president whose approval ratings were higher at the end of his presidency than when he started.
I noticed that too. :thumb:
I noticed that he started with low approval ratings.

There was a statistical anomaly there - a 3-way race.

Perot was leading until he quit in July – then when he came back he never got the lead back.

So the popularity was spread over more candidates.

The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Copper
Jan 20 2009, 09:24 AM
Red Rice
Jan 20 2009, 08:47 AM
Axtremus
Jan 20 2009, 08:44 AM
big al
Jan 20 2009, 08:06 AM
I noticed that Bill Clinton was the only post-WWII president whose approval ratings were higher at the end of his presidency than when he started.
I noticed that too. :thumb:
I noticed that he started with low approval ratings.

There was a statistical anomaly there - a 3-way race.

Perot was leading until he quit in July – then when he came back he never got the lead back.

So the popularity was spread over more candidates.

That's an interesting theory, but it doesn't hold.

For example, if you add Bush 41's popularity at the end of his term, to Clinton's popularity at the beginning of his, it adds up to more than 100% ... even without accounting for Perot.

The same is true, in an even more exaggerated fashion, at the end of Ford's term and the beginning of Carter's.

There are other examples, but I'm restricting myself to incumbents who ran and lost ... so that we can compare the predecessor's and the successor's popularity directly, when they were competing against each other in the general election.

The lesson is that it's possible for the predecessor and the successor to BOTH be popular. Therefore, Perot wouldn't necessarily have taken away from Clinton's popularity ... people could have liked BOTH Clinton and Perot.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
plays88keys
Pisa-Carp
Mikhailoh
Jan 20 2009, 08:12 AM
Who gives a carp about popularity? Did he do the job is what is important. I would submit that a great many Americans are not very well equipped to judge that with any accuracy.
A great many people care about how they perceive our leader is doing his job - and don't think other countries aren't paying attention to what our nation thinks about our leader.

Some may not be the best judge of a president's actions, but to imply that most don't is an insult. Regardless of how you feel about the job approval ratings Mik, they are an important gauge of how we, as a nation, feel our president is handling his responsibilities.

You can never get enough of what you don't need to make you happy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
QuirtEvans
Jan 20 2009, 09:56 AM

The lesson is that it's possible for the predecessor and the successor to BOTH be popular. Therefore, Perot wouldn't necessarily have taken away from Clinton's popularity ... people could have liked BOTH Clinton and Perot.

I saw two points of difference in the 3-way race.

1. 2 campaigns were pounding on Mr. Clinton.

2. The percentage of total votes to Mr. Clinton (43%) was lower than most winners. (Bush (37%) Perot (18%))

So Mr. Clinton started off with a smaller percentage of voters who supported him.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
plays88keys
Jan 20 2009, 10:34 AM
Mikhailoh
Jan 20 2009, 08:12 AM
Who gives a carp about popularity? Did he do the job is what is important. I would submit that a great many Americans are not very well equipped to judge that with any accuracy.
A great many people care about how they perceive our leader is doing his job - and don't think other countries aren't paying attention to what our nation thinks about our leader.

Some may not be the best judge of a president's actions, but to imply that most don't is an insult. Regardless of how you feel about the job approval ratings Mik, they are an important gauge of how we, as a nation, feel our president is handling his responsibilities.

Plays, many Americans don't know enough about how things are really run, the limitations of power and the actual role of the presidency to make an accurate evaluation of one's performance. It is not a matter of intelligence but of life experience. They have simply never been exposed to such things. They ascribe both victories and defeats to ALL presidents that have not a thing to do with anything they did or failed to do.

I'd pay a lot more attention to it if I thought more of the population made much of an effort to educate themselves on it.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Copper
Jan 20 2009, 12:17 PM
QuirtEvans
Jan 20 2009, 09:56 AM

The lesson is that it's possible for the predecessor and the successor to BOTH be popular. Therefore, Perot wouldn't necessarily have taken away from Clinton's popularity ... people could have liked BOTH Clinton and Perot.

I saw two points of difference in the 3-way race.

1. 2 campaigns were pounding on Mr. Clinton.

2. The percentage of total votes to Mr. Clinton (43%) was lower than most winners. (Bush (37%) Perot (18%))

So Mr. Clinton started off with a smaller percentage of voters who supported him.
That isn't the same as an approval rating. As we've discovered, approval ratings can add up to more than 100%. Voting, however, cannot except in Chicago, and maybe Minnesooota.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
ivorythumper
Jan 20 2009, 09:15 AM
The same guy who so trashed America's international stature that we were held hostage for 444 days by a group of students?
Could you please show me just how you make this connection?

As for your comment about nuclear power, take a look at how potentially contaminated waste is stored to this very day, and tell me again how nuclear power is the holy grail of energy independence.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
OperaTenor
Jan 20 2009, 02:35 PM
ivorythumper
Jan 20 2009, 09:15 AM
The same guy who so trashed America's international stature that we were held hostage for 444 days by a group of students?
Could you please show me just how you make this connection?
Even sympathetic historians (such as Dumbrell) acknowledge that he was humiliated by OPEC , that he lost confidence even with his own advisers (remember that he effectively had to fire four of his own cabinet members), that several months before the hostage crisis he had the lowest public approval rating of any president for three decades, that his UN ambassador resigned in disgrace after meeting with the PLO, that he botched Nicaragua, and that he sold out the Shah in 79. He was perceived as weak by the Soviets, who invaded Afghanistan with impunity...He couldn't even get the Senate to ratify SALT II, and the Russsians placed a brigade in Cuba under his watch. I can go on, but do you really need this rehashed?
Quote:
 

As for your comment about nuclear power, take a look at how potentially contaminated waste is stored to this very day, and tell me again how nuclear power is the holy grail of energy independence.

What other sources of power are able to generate sufficient power to run a country without using non renewable resources? Solar? Hydroelectric? Geo thermal?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lb1
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
OperaTenor
Jan 20 2009, 02:35 PM
As for your comment about nuclear power, take a look at how potentially contaminated waste is stored to this very day, and tell me again how nuclear power is the holy grail of energy independence.

Hey OT,

Google COAL ASH. There are dozens, real dozens :P , of sites listing the contamination and even radioactivity of this material.

lb
My position is simple: you jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and slung mud on an issue where none was deserved. Quirt 03/08/09
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Lots of things are dangerous. Some are moderately dangerous, some are incredibly dangerous. Some are dangerous in large quantities, some are dangerous in even very small quantities.

Don't you think it makes sense to worry about things that are incredibly dangerous in even very small quantities first?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I heard an interview with Christine Todd Whitman a few days ago, she is strongly pro-nuclear and made a pretty good case for it.

I think most of our cultural pushback against nuclear is due to irrational fear rather than a reasonable cost/benefit analysis. We don't like nuclear power like we don't like spiders and snakes.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lb1
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
QuirtEvans
Jan 21 2009, 04:27 AM

Don't you think it makes sense to worry about things that are incredibly dangerous in even very small quantities first?
Which we do. I don't think there is an informed person that isn't aware of the dangers of spent radioactive material. How many though are aware of the mountains of contaminated waste that is building up in the world from other forms of electric generation. And how about the invisible mountains that are pumped into the air.

We are swatting mosquitos when we are up to our @ss in a swamp full of alligators. I would be less concerned with a spent radioactive material storage site next to my property than I would a coal ash dump even miles away from me.

lb
My position is simple: you jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and slung mud on an issue where none was deserved. Quirt 03/08/09
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply