ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags barack obama , George W. Bush , presidential approval , presidential rankings

Reply
Old 4th July 2014, 11:27 AM   #121
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,399
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
Absent a more refined statistical metric as I've discussed, I'll go with overall averages. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx Putting him in the bottom 4 but not the worst.
I don't understand.

The poll cited in the OP says that Obama is the worst.

Now you're saying other polls indicate he's not the worst.

Could you please explain which poll I should believe and why? And how your ironclad method of relying on public opinion could yield inconsistent results?
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2014, 12:37 PM   #122
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 9,519
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
Absent a more refined statistical metric as I've discussed, I'll go with overall averages. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx Putting him in the bottom 4 but not the worst.
That doesn't answer my question: Who do you think, and why?
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2014, 01:34 PM   #123
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I don't understand.

The poll cited in the OP says that Obama is the worst.

Now you're saying other polls indicate he's not the worst.

Could you please explain which poll I should believe and why? And how your ironclad method of relying on public opinion could yield inconsistent results?
Believe whoever you want. I was asked who I believe is the worst, and I gave my opinion which is based on the polling data I cited.

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post
That doesn't answer my question: Who do you think, and why?
See the above. I'm looking to base my opinion on some sort of metrics. The one I cited is the one I think identifies the best and worst. This back and forth, "well Bush/Obama did this, and that..." is pointless.

Last edited by Neally; 4th July 2014 at 02:00 PM.
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2014, 03:27 PM   #124
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 9,519
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
See the above. I'm looking to base my opinion on some sort of metrics.
Like..?
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2014, 03:40 PM   #125
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Do any of you get the joke in the subject line?
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2014, 04:48 PM   #126
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,399
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
Believe whoever you want. I was asked who I believe is the worst, and I gave my opinion which is based on the polling data I cited.
You have championed the validity of public opinion polls.

Now we have multiple public opinion polls that yield different results on the same topic.

Which one is right and why?
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2014, 05:05 PM   #127
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post
Like..?
Like overall approval rating during terms in office. From Truman on, BO is 4th worse.

Originally Posted by johnny karate
Which one is right and why?
I gave it to you along with my reasoning.

Last edited by Neally; 4th July 2014 at 05:15 PM.
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2014, 05:53 PM   #128
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,399
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
I gave it to you along with my reasoning.
You said you agreed with one group of polls.

You did not give your reasoning for why that group of polls is correct, nor why another that contradicts them is wrong.

How are you able to decide which public opinion polls are correct?
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2014, 06:16 PM   #129
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
If those numbers pan out with the relevant other numbers. Apart from what others have pointed out about fairly high approval ratings, to get a sense of who people actually think is the worst President since WWII, you'd have to have surveys that asked this same question during each of their presidencies to compare to each other. I'm all but certain that each and every president would have 'won' the 'worst president' title in the middle of or towards the end of their runs because their opposition will be united against them at that point while their allies will split their vote. The next president will be rated the worst then. Then the one after that. So you'd have to actually compare numbers longitudinally.
This is a very good point. Fortunately, Quinnipiac actually ran a head-to-head poll between Bush and Obama, which is probably the fairest measure of relative popularity between Obama and another president. Bush was considered the better president by 40%, Obama was considered better by 39%, and the rest thought they were about the same or expressed no opinion.

Was Obama at a disadvantage because he's still President? Probably. Of course, he has almost always had the media wind at his back, and Bush has had the media wind in his face. Interestingly, independents broke against Obama pretty strongly, 41% to 31%, but there were more Democrats in the sample than Republicans (31%-26%), and Republicans were slightly more supportive of Obama than Democrats were of Bush (7% to 4%).

Quote:
Besides that, there would of course be the facts of history such as the actual effects the actual actions of the president will have. Presidents get blamed and credited for an entire host of things that aren't in their control. There is no way the layman is going to be able to make that judgement. On that level, the basic question is deeply flawed. The idea that who the general populace believes is the worst president, and who is actually the worst president would line up is pretty laughable. Even experts would have a tough time making that call.
The usual experts called on to judge presidents are historians, who in my experience are a pretty biased lot (liberally so). I would rather read their comparative analyses rather than just the rankings they assign. Here's one by Peggy Noonan, which I think makes a persuasive case that Obama is at least an anomaly (and probably not a good one).
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2014, 06:40 PM   #130
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
You said you agreed with one group of polls.

You did not give your reasoning for why that group of polls is correct, nor why another that contradicts them is wrong.

How are you able to decide which public opinion polls are correct?
I'm not going to keep repeating it since you either don't read or forget what I've posted in #102 & #109.
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2014, 07:19 PM   #131
Frozenwolf150
Formerly SilentKnight
 
Frozenwolf150's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,134
Didn't people have a lower opinion of Clinton when he was still president, compared to Obama today? My memory on this isn't so good.
__________________
We'll meet again, Don't know where, Don't know when
But I know we'll meet again some sunny day
Keep smiling through, Just like you always do
Till the blue skies drive the dark clouds far away
Frozenwolf150 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2014, 08:33 PM   #132
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,807
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
Do you really want to go there? Last time we brought up a thread from 2008 it was some folks praising Sarah Palin to the rafters because she was obviously such a great politician.

Actually, the recent bumping of that thread was one of the things which prompted me to post the link to AUP's 2008 thread.

Just as it's a good idea in relation to 'psychics' who spout off predictions to look back regularly at what they said in years past and see how well it holds up, so I think it's a good idea in relation to those of us who spout off on politics to look back regularly and see how well it holds up.

(I am often amazed that many professional pundits whose track records rival those of professional psychics are still regularly featured in broadcast and print media.)

When a story is current, it's often hard to tell whose analyses of the events are good and whose aren't. Several years later, after things have settled out, we often can see better who was speaking sense and who was speaking nonsense.

A lot of the comments made in 2008 praising Sarah Palin extravagantly do not hold up well today. In contrast, I think AUP and the other posters in that thread come off reasonably well.

Much of the thread got side-tracked into discussion of who to blame for the housing loan crisis -- a subject which is still muddy. But I thought the discussion of what Obama would be facing (if he won), what he might be able to accomplish, and how he would be viewed was reasonably intelligent.

(Of course, the main reason I couldn't resist mentioning that thread here, is that AUP's thread title ties in so perfectly with this one -- even though the topics of discussion in that thread are significantly different from the topics of discussion in this one.)
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2014, 08:45 PM   #133
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,399
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
I'm not going to keep repeating it since you either don't read or forget what I've posted in #102 & #109.
Here are both those posts in their entirety:
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
Yes. I'm not all that confident with the appeal to authority angle particularly with a subjective thing like "place in history" from a small number of biased academics. I'd look for something along the lines some sort of comprehensive number that would take into account the job approval rating over the term and other objective economic numbers that could be directly attributable to presidential directives, if any.
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
In other words, incorporating public opinion into the rating, just like I said.

In other words, using public opinion to determine the ranking. I though you were against Argumentu ad populum and that there were other "facts" outside of public opinion that should be used. Below you mention some sort of objective measurments which I agree with, but it sounds like you also want to include job approval ratings.

BTW, I agree that surveying who people think was the worst is not an approach that should be used.

Which is also essentially what I said.

Please highlight the part that explains how you are able to determine which public opinion polls are correct when they yield different results.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2014, 09:16 PM   #134
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,807
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
... one random popularity poll has absolutely no bearing on Obama's place in history.

Yes, I agree with you completely.

I think you may have misunderstood my post, which surprises me a little if you actually read my post so I think you likely just skimmed it. The point of my post was to point to a 6-year old thread which (tangentially) related to the topic of this thread and which I thought readers of this thread might find interesting.

My framing that AUP had made a prediction which came true was intended as humorous. What AUP said was that the US (in 2008) appeared to be in a similar situation to what Australia had faced recently, and he thought it likely the outcome would also likely be similar. That's a sensible point, even though things didn't work out as similarly as I think he expected.

I thought I had made my humorous intent clear, but obviously not. A jokes not funny if one to explain it, but I'll explain anyway.

Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
On October 24, 2008, a_unique_person posted this prediction: Obama will go down in history as being a worse President than Carter

Darat closed the thread (likely after being directed to do so from JREF higher-ups who were aware that a poll would come out in 2014 confirming this prediction) but I thought folks reading this new thread might be interested in re-reading that thread now.
I could imagine people taking the part in red seriously if this were the John Edward Educational Foundation or the Sylvia Browne Society. But this is JREF and I assumed most regular posters here knew better.

The reason Darat closed the thread is that it was part of a special 2008 Elections sub-section of the Politics forum. With the 2008 elections over, Darat closed the sub-section and all the threads in it. (After all, who could have predicted that people would still be interested in discussing the 2008 election after it was over?) It had nothing to do with AUP having made some super-prediction (which, as the quoted AUP post showed, he hadn't, despite my framing it as such). And my insinuation that JREF employs psychics who can accurately predict events 6 years in advance is obvious nonsense.

I assumed everyone here would be familiar with Pehata's Limit, which establishes it's impossible to make reliably-accurate psychic predictions more than 5 years in advance. Evidently not. Next time I'll know better and stick to serious posting.
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 03:31 AM   #135
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Okay, so nobody got the joke in the subject line? "Since WWII" means "since FDR". Gotta love it.
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 04:34 AM   #136
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
Okay, so nobody got the joke in the subject line? "Since WWII" means "since FDR". Gotta love it.
I suppose that's only amusing to people who think FDR wasn't a terrible president.

Woodrow Wilson was probably even worse, and in some respects FDR really was the horrible sequel to Wilson. So, interestingly, WWII is an appropriate alias for FDR.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 04:35 AM   #137
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
I suppose that's only amusing to people who think FDR wasn't a terrible president.

Woodrow Wilson was probably even worse, and in some respects FDR really was the horrible sequel to Wilson. So, interestingly, WWII is an appropriate alias for FDR.
Ah, you're a Republican.
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 05:30 AM   #138
Alareth
Philosopher
 
Alareth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,682
WWII was a horrible president. I don't think it's possible to be worse.
Alareth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 05:42 AM   #139
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Originally Posted by Alareth View Post
WWII was a horrible president. I don't think it's possible to be worse.
I blame Obama.
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 06:08 AM   #140
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 9,519
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
I blame Obama.
Thanks WWII!
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 06:21 AM   #141
Monketi Ghost
Confusion Reactor
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 25,141
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Yeah, I don't get this complaint. Bush was president for a whopping 7 months and 22 days. The national security state is like a cruise ship with a frozen rudder. How long does it take to turn around? How long does it take even to figure out there's a huge problem? I wouldn't frankly blame the 9/11 security lapses on any one person in particular, but Clinton has got to be at least as culpable as Bush.



On both of them? The war in Afghanistan was the "good" war, remember? It was fully bipartisan (come to think of it, so was the Iraq War until the going got tough), and Obama actually significantly deepened our involvement there. 170% more US soldiers have died in Afghanistan under Obama than under Bush. So how the Afghanistan War can be blamed on Bush but not on Obama is beyond me.



Good points. Bush got a bad rap for Katrina. FEMA is a distributor of funds and a training agency. It's really mostly administrative, but for some reason most people think it is some sort of superhero, search and rescue arm of the federal government. Katrina looked bad because (a) it was the "perfect" storm; and (b) the local governments of Louisiana and New Orleans did a horrible job.



The housing bubble collapse wasn't Bush's fault. It was in some sense decades in the making, and a lot of it is the fault of government policies which had bipartisan support (especially the implicit guarantees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were favorites of liberal Democrats, if anybody). I think Bush did an admirable job of addressing the crisis in the little time he had left remaining in his administration. And he tried to do as much as possible to help give Obama a running start and the tools he needed. I feel like Obama dropped the ball on the recovery. It is not a coincidence that, 5 years on, we still have subpar growth. One would normally expect a huge bounce back from such a deep recession. There was one under Reagan, for example.



Comparing Presidents is pretty stupid in general. They each face unique problems, and, like quarterbacks of football teams, they get way too much credit for successes and way too much blame for failures that happen on their watch. It makes more sense to compare ex-Presidents, and in that respect, Bush II is an excellent ex-President. He has remained dignified and respectful and eschews partisan criticism of his successor.
Nothing that happened while W was POTUS was his fault!
Monketi Ghost is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 07:15 AM   #142
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost View Post
Nothing that happened while W was POTUS was his fault!
Because he was never POTUS. Just ask any Tea Bagger. We went straight from Clinton to BHO.
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 08:07 AM   #143
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,399
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
Yes, I agree with you completely.

I think you may have misunderstood my post, which surprises me a little if you actually read my post so I think you likely just skimmed it. The point of my post was to point to a 6-year old thread which (tangentially) related to the topic of this thread and which I thought readers of this thread might find interesting.

My framing that AUP had made a prediction which came true was intended as humorous. What AUP said was that the US (in 2008) appeared to be in a similar situation to what Australia had faced recently, and he thought it likely the outcome would also likely be similar. That's a sensible point, even though things didn't work out as similarly as I think he expected.

I thought I had made my humorous intent clear, but obviously not. A jokes not funny if one to explain it, but I'll explain anyway.



I could imagine people taking the part in red seriously if this were the John Edward Educational Foundation or the Sylvia Browne Society. But this is JREF and I assumed most regular posters here knew better.

The reason Darat closed the thread is that it was part of a special 2008 Elections sub-section of the Politics forum. With the 2008 elections over, Darat closed the sub-section and all the threads in it. (After all, who could have predicted that people would still be interested in discussing the 2008 election after it was over?) It had nothing to do with AUP having made some super-prediction (which, as the quoted AUP post showed, he hadn't, despite my framing it as such). And my insinuation that JREF employs psychics who can accurately predict events 6 years in advance is obvious nonsense.

I assumed everyone here would be familiar with Pehata's Limit, which establishes it's impossible to make reliably-accurate psychic predictions more than 5 years in advance. Evidently not. Next time I'll know better and stick to serious posting.
I guess I did misunderstand the intent of your original post.

My apologies.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 08:26 AM   #144
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,399
Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost View Post
Nothing that happened while W was POTUS was his fault!
When I posted that list of "occurences", it wasn't my intention to explicitly blame Bush for any of them, but merely to point out that they happened on his watch, and to make that same criterion available for anyone who wished to demonstrate that Obama was an objectively worse president that Bush.

The tsunami of rationalization from Bush-apologists was to be expected, but still missed the point.

What we are left with - it seems to me - is a lot of bitter, angry conservatives who always despised Obama and are now reveling in the fact that they have a poll that validates them, the legitimacy or significance of that poll be damned.

It's the same mentality and maturity level as teenage girls arguing about their favorite boy band.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 08:37 AM   #145
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost View Post
Nothing that happened while W was POTUS was his fault!
I blame a lot of Dubya's mistakes on Cheney and his coven of neocons. They led Bush around by the nose for the first year to year and a half of the "Bush" years.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 08:56 AM   #146
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
I blame a lot of Dubya's mistakes on Cheney and his coven of neocons. They led Bush around by the nose for the first year to year and a half of the "Bush" years.
Then they put him in a room with a whole box of Lego.
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 09:03 AM   #147
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post

Please highlight the part that explains how you are able to determine which public opinion polls are correct when they yield different results.
Apparently you are unable to distinguish the difference between polls that measure two different things.
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 09:13 AM   #148
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,399
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
Apparently you are unable to distinguish the difference between polls that measure two different things.
From the link in the OP:
Quote:
A new Quinnipiac University survey found that voters rate Mr. Obama as the country’s worst president since World War II.
From you:
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
Absent a more refined statistical metric as I've discussed, I'll go with overall averages. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx Putting him in the bottom 4 but not the worst.

Different public opinion polls measuring the same thing: Who is the worst president.

And yet somehow they came up with different results.

How is that possible?
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 09:24 AM   #149
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Different public opinion polls measuring the same thing: Who is the worst president.

And yet somehow they came up with different results.

How is that possible?
The polls and approaches are completely different, obviously. I've given my reasoning why I have my preference. Your continued hounding this in trying to draw some sort of equivalency and therefore trying for an irrational "gotcha" isn't working. It's also borderline trolling.
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 10:10 AM   #150
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,399
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
The polls and approaches are completely different, obviously.
How are they different and what makes one more valid than the other?

Please be specific and offer cites where applicable.

Quote:
I've given my reasoning why I have my preference.
I'm not looking for your "preference". I'm looking for some objective measure that supports your position regarding the validity of public opinion polls. You have yet to supply that.

Quote:
Your continued hounding this in trying to draw some sort of equivalency and therefore trying for an irrational "gotcha" isn't working. It's also borderline trolling.
I'm sorry if having your assertions challenged offends you. Simply provide the information I requested and we can be done with this.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 10:35 AM   #151
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,440
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I'm sorry if having your assertions challenged offends you. Simply provide the information I requested and we can be done with this.
This, pretty much. No more dancing.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 10:56 AM   #152
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
How are they different and what makes one more valid than the other?
Please be specific and offer cites where applicable.
What part of, "Presidential Job Approval Rating" and "Thinking about the United States Presidents we have had since World War II: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Senior, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, which one would you consider the best president? " do you not understand? For the polling differences, compare http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/pr...al-center.aspx with http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-e...ReleaseID=2056

For the third time, I've already explained why the former is better than the latter. I've explained why polls are better than appeals to authority in this situation.


Quote:
I'm not looking for your "preference". I'm looking for some objective measure that supports your position regarding the validity of public opinion polls. You have yet to supply that.
I've already gave my reasoning. Your lack of remembering or understanding is your problem.

Quote:
I'm sorry if having your assertions challenged offends you. Simply provide the information I requested and we can be done with this.
You haven't challenged my assertions and I have no problem debating them. I do have a problem with repeating something over and over to someone that doesn't pay attention or is fishing for something that isn't there.

The bottom line with this deliberately obtuse questioning of yours is that it's troubling for you that both polling approaches put your beloved BO at or near the bottom, and that you need to resort to trying to attack the whole idea of polling as a methodology to determine a president's "place in history".
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 10:58 AM   #153
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,440
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
What part of, "Presidential Job Approval Rating" and "Thinking about the United States Presidents we have had since World War II: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Senior, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, which one would you consider the best president? " do you not understand? For the polling differences, compare http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/pr...al-center.aspx with http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-e...ReleaseID=2056

For the third time, I've already explained why the former is better than the latter. I've explained why polls are better than appeals to authority in this situation.


I've already gave my reasoning. Your lack of remembering or understanding is your problem.

You haven't challenged my assertions and I have no problem debating them. I do have a problem with repeating something over and over to someone that doesn't pay attention or is fishing for something that isn't there.

The bottom line with this deliberately obtuse questioning of yours is that it's troubling for you that both polling approaches put your beloved BO at or near the bottom, and that you need to resort to trying to attack the whole idea of polling as a methodology to determine a president's "place in history".
I don't understand. Where did you explain how one approach was better than the other one?
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 12:16 PM   #154
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,801
I suppose "worst" is relative. Found this article while browsing around:

Quote:
Despite the fact that millions of Americans still blame George W. Bush for the weak recovery, even he has seen his approval rating tick up in recent years. As the current president, Obama has not yet had the opportunity to capture this post-presidency favorability boost. Five years from now, Americans will almost certainly look back with fonder memories of his time in office. Note that when Quinnipiac ran an identical poll, in the second term of Bush’s presidency, Americans rated him as the worst modern-day president—by basically the same percentage (34 percent) as they currently rate Obama (33 percent).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ew-poll-shows/

I just note this because people's memory is usually bad enough when it comes to politics, but you could say this is another one of those things that Obama's not doing a "first timer" on.

And to add....
Quote:
Voters also rated the man who swept into office in 2009 with a promise of “hope and change” as worse than even his predecessor, Republican President George W. Bush, who left office with terrible approval ratings.
From the same article... (it has things partisans would wet dream and curdle simultaneously over)
If you base your opinion of Obama as a person setting himself apart from his predecessors, he doesn't really have to be objectively "the worst POTUS" in history to still take hit to the gut in a popularity contest. Essentially goes back to my earlier responses about where some of the poll results could have come from. Far from being this exclusively though.

The articles is linked for all interested.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 5th July 2014 at 12:17 PM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 12:33 PM   #155
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,797
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
This, pretty much. No more dancing.
Yes, please. No more dancing.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2014, 05:43 PM   #156
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,049
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
This is a very good point. Fortunately, Quinnipiac actually ran a head-to-head poll between Bush and Obama, which is probably the fairest measure of relative popularity between Obama and another president. Bush was considered the better president by 40%, Obama was considered better by 39%, and the rest thought they were about the same or expressed no opinion.
'Fairest' doesn't equal 'fair'.

Quote:
Was Obama at a disadvantage because he's still President? Probably. Of course, he has almost always had the media wind at his back, and Bush has had the media wind in his face.
The largest media network is unabashedly and completely pro Bush and anti Obama. People can easily stay in their own impervious information bubble and thus be convinced that 'the media' is all anti-Republican, and they can be convinced of that from the media!

Quote:
Interestingly, independents broke against Obama pretty strongly, 41% to 31%, but there were more Democrats in the sample than Republicans (31%-26%), and Republicans were slightly more supportive of Obama than Democrats were of Bush (7% to 4%).



The usual experts called on to judge presidents are historians, who in my experience are a pretty biased lot (liberally so). I would rather read their comparative analyses rather than just the rankings they assign. Here's one by Peggy Noonan, which I think makes a persuasive case that Obama is at least an anomaly (and probably not a good one).

Peggy Noonan? She's not a historian, and while she's very bright (I remember her very quickly identifying Palin as lacking), Obama's run still isn't over. A conservative book writer's opinion now isn't what I was talking about. The facts still aren't at hand.

As disappointed as I have been with Obama's run, he's had some really good parts and I don't see how anyone could have done better with the Congress as it has been. I can certainly name several people I believe would have been much worse.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 05:27 PM   #157
Peephole
Master Poster
 
Peephole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,584
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
The housing bubble collapse wasn't Bush's fault. It was in some sense decades in the making, and a lot of it is the fault of government policies which had bipartisan support (especially the implicit guarantees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were favorites of liberal Democrats, if anybody).
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had very little relevance to the financial crisis. You should educate yourself better on this matter. The major problem was decades of deregulation. Bush did nothing to reverse this.
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
I think Bush did an admirable job of addressing the crisis in the little time he had left remaining in his administration. And he tried to do as much as possible to help give Obama a running start and the tools he needed. I feel like Obama dropped the ball on the recovery. It is not a coincidence that, 5 years on, we still have subpar growth. One would normally expect a huge bounce back from such a deep recession. There was one under Reagan, for example.
Obama tried but Congress refused any more stimulus. Reagan didn't do ****, the Federal Reserve tanked the US economy to get inflation down, and when that was accomplished they lowered rates again and the temporary unemployment crisis was easily fixed.
__________________
Peephole is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 05:33 PM   #158
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,692
Originally Posted by Peephole View Post
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had very little relevance to the financial crisis. You should educate yourself better on this matter. The major problem was decades of deregulation. Bush did nothing to reverse this.
Indeed. We went through this recently and I posted this link:

http://fcic.law.stanford.edu/

This is the official congressional report on how the 2008 crisis occurred. Note that Fannie and Freddie were late to the game in terms of subprime mortgages and were actually losing market share. Any theory of the crisis that does not include CDOs and CDSs is complete BS.
__________________
Cleek's Law: Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily.

"Palin must now be considered the future of the Republican Party." ~ Brainster
Unabogie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 05:59 PM   #159
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Peephole View Post
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had very little relevance to the financial crisis. You should educate yourself better on this matter. The major problem was decades of deregulation. Bush did nothing to reverse this.
The implicit government backing of Fannie and Freddie was THE key driver of the financial crisis, in my opinion. The original sin, if you will. Private financial institutions simply could not compete with Fannie and Freddie in the market for conforming mortgage loans, so they were forced to look for business elsewhere, mainly in the subprime and alt-A sectors. This led to innovative loans and securitization structures which inflated a massive credit bubble. Credit bubbles have huge positive feedback because as credit loosens, asset prices rise which leads to good loan performance which then leads to more loosening of credit standards. Fannie and Freddie of course jumped on the subprime and alt-A bandwagon, thus enhancing the effect.

Quote:
Obama tried but Congress refused any more stimulus. Reagan didn't do ****, the Federal Reserve tanked the US economy to get inflation down, and when that was accomplished they lowered rates again and the temporary unemployment crisis was easily fixed.
The Federal Reserve is pretty impotent when it comes to managing the economy. It can only tinker around with interest rates, which of course captures the attention of bond traders, but has little effect on the real economy. Fiscal policy is paramount. Taxing and spending policy is where the real action is. Reagan lowered taxes and increased spending. It was the right prescription in 1981, and it was the right prescription in 2009. If Obama had been willing to cut income taxes, he could have had his spending too. In any case, he came up short, even on spending. You could blame some of that on Republicans not giving him the spending he wanted, but he actually got almost all of what he asked for, at least initially. His administration made some bold predictions about how effective the stimulus would be, and they were all wrong.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 06:16 PM   #160
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,692
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
The implicit government backing of Fannie and Freddie was THE key driver of the financial crisis, in my opinion.
Even the conservative dissent disagrees with you.

http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/...as_dissent.pdf
__________________
Cleek's Law: Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily.

"Palin must now be considered the future of the Republican Party." ~ Brainster
Unabogie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.