Obama's 47 Percent Approval Lowest of Any President at This Point
- Thread starter drjekyllus
- Start date
Reagan and Obama at this point in the first terms show about the same ratings. History shows Reagan dropped significantly from this point before he recovered and won a second term in a huge landslide.
Point is: don't put too much into the polls this far from the election.
S
Point is: don't put too much into the polls this far from the election.
S
Quote from seneca_roman:
Reagan and Obama at this point in the first terms show about the same ratings. History shows Reagan dropped significantly from this point before he recovered and won a second term in a huge landslide.
Point is: don't put too much into the polls this far from the election.
S
Weren't you the same guy who said Corzine would win?
Not only that you mocked me for suggesting otherwise. You are an Obama supporter from the beginning and your opinion is not valid.
Please elaborate. I am not a liberal and have no idea what "neerer neerer" is in reference to.
The main difference is that Reagen 's policies set us up for the recovery.
Obama's policies will not.
At this point in time it is very difficult to decide if an investment in business is smart.
Many investors, hedge funds, venture and angel investors can not forecast costs, risks and returns in a 3 or 5 year investment in a business.
Taxes, healthcare costs, Cap and trade,Estates taxes, Expiring tax cuts, deficits are all unknowns. All are in risk of going against the interests of business investors. Therefore money is frozen. It is buying bonds, oil, gold, existing stocks.
Not one job will be created in the private sector until these issues are settled.
No. I said I thought that even though he was a crappy Gov that because of his vast personal wealth, he had a chance to win it. I think he came fairly close.
Here is my earlier post:
"This will be an interesting race to watch. To me, Christie is the type of moderate Republican that can get elected. He beat out what I call is the typical super conservative in the primary. That guy ran in part on the "flat tax" vs issues near and dear to NJites, ie, property taxes being near the highest in the nation.
According to the composite polls at RCP, the lead is around 8%, actually not very big at this stage, considering how poorly Corzine did during his term as Gov.
Corzine is suffering from not delivering on campaign promised property tax reductions and the fallout of the crappy economy.
All in all, it'll be a fun one to watch.
Christie is making pipedream promises which could backfire on him. EG-he will get job growth by cutting business taxes. In NJ (I lived and worked there for about 9 years), this is a huge problem.
However, cutting business taxes means either cutting spending or raising someone elses taxes ( see comment about high property taxes. )
In addition, NJ has very high income taxes. So, Corzine will likely spin this as putting more burden on the already overburdened individual via higher property and income taxes.
Christie has another serious problem and that is campaign finance. He will be limited to about $10.9 million in public funds while the very wealthy Corzine has no limit in spending his personal fortune, something he has been willing to do.
NJ is somewhat unique in that it has no major TV stations; therefore, candidates have to buy from either the NYC or Philly stations with the NYC being the most expensive in the nation. This clearly is a disadvantage for Christie.
Also, Corzine will likely bring in Obama. As you know, the big O. has huge popular support.
This will be a very closely watched election. IMO, if Christie wins and I think he can and actually hope he will, it will have national implications for the GOP by making easier for the so called impure moderates to run.
BTW-Reps can and do win north of the Mason Dixon line, just not very often."
Your statement makes no sense as opinions are just that. IMO, your rabid support for a bunch of wingnuts makes anything you say invalid.
Enjoy.
S
This is just too rich..."People who need to buy coverage as individuals and small employers are going to have a lot more in the way of attractive health insurance options, and they won't have to worry about whether their medical condition precludes them from being covered," said policy expert Paul Ginsburg, who heads the nonpartisan Center for Studying Health System Change.
The downside: "Sticker shock is going to come to some."
And get ready for a whole new set of trade-offs.
For example, people in their 50s and early 60s, when health problems tend to surface, are likely to pay less than they would now. But those in their 20s and 30s, who get the best deals today, will face higher premiums, though for better coverage.
The numbskulls that voted for this guy are going to take it up the arse big time. Welcome to the real world kiddies! Approval rating will keep sinking.
The downside: "Sticker shock is going to come to some."
And get ready for a whole new set of trade-offs.
For example, people in their 50s and early 60s, when health problems tend to surface, are likely to pay less than they would now. But those in their 20s and 30s, who get the best deals today, will face higher premiums, though for better coverage.
The numbskulls that voted for this guy are going to take it up the arse big time. Welcome to the real world kiddies! Approval rating will keep sinking.