Gallup: Obama's 4th Year in Office Most Polarized in History

[BDKJMU]

Obama's Fourth Year in Office Ties as Most Polarized Ever
Seventy-six-point gap in party ratings of Obama ties Bush in 2004-2005
by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- During his fourth year in office, an average of 86% of Democrats and 10% of Republicans approved of the job Barack Obama did as president. That 76-percentage-point gap ties George W. Bush's fourth year as the most polarized years in Gallup records......



....Obama on Pace to Be Most Polarizing President Yet

The average party gap in ratings of President Obama during the four years of his presidency is 70 percentage points. If that average holds, it would surpass Bush's record 61-point average polarization during his eight-year presidency by a considerable margin. Bush also finished his presidency with a significantly larger party gap in job approval ratings than the previous leader, Bill Clinton (55 points).


http://www.gallup.com/poll/160097/obama ... -ever.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

1) Bush had a ratings boost from 9/11.

2) The hilarious part of this is how similar the two are from a policy standpoint. Fucking partisans.

[Ivytalk]

1) Bush had a ratings boost from 9/11.

2) The hilarious part of this is how similar the two are from a policy standpoint. **** partisans.

Yeah, kalm, you're above all that crass partisanship, with such a transcendent, superior view of things.

Sure, you are.

Whatever.

[kalm]

1) Bush had a ratings boost from 9/11.

2) The hilarious part of this is how similar the two are from a policy standpoint. **** partisans.

Yeah, kalm, you're above all that crass partisanship, with such a transcendent, superior view of things.

Sure, you are.

Whatever.

Jeffersonian Republicans unite!

[HI54UNI]

This is probably the only good thing related to Obama:

[houndawg]

Obama's Fourth Year in Office Ties as Most Polarized Ever
Seventy-six-point gap in party ratings of Obama ties Bush in 2004-2005
by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- During his fourth year in office, an average of 86% of Democrats and 10% of Republicans approved of the job Barack Obama did as president. That 76-percentage-point gap ties George W. Bush's fourth year as the most polarized years in Gallup records......



....Obama on Pace to Be Most Polarizing President Yet

The average party gap in ratings of President Obama during the four years of his presidency is 70 percentage points. If that average holds, it would surpass Bush's record 61-point average polarization during his eight-year presidency by a considerable margin. Bush also finished his presidency with a significantly larger party gap in job approval ratings than the previous leader, Bill Clinton (55 points).


http://www.gallup.com/poll/160097/obama ... -ever.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elections have consequences.

[kalm]

BTW, this sentiment doesn't occur in a vacuum. More money is being spent on elections than ever before and there seems to be more negative campaigning and blatant attack ads. Also, as Republicans become totally unhinged, the crescendo of blaming and hating from both the media and in congress is off the charts. How many presidents have had a house member cry out "you lie" during a speech? Speaking of which, I wonder what the congressional approval rating is these days...ya think there's a correlation?

Funny thing is, Republicans don't and probably can't complain about the shit that really matters like military spending and intervention, the surveillance state, prosecution of financial crimes banking reform, the War on Drugs. Viva Obushma!

[GannonFan]

The problem is that the Republicans have lost the social wars right now - they're wrong on any issue relating to homosexuality, they're wrong on immigration, and while the abortion position doesn't hurt them (abortion's 50/50 basically anyway), they do come off as anti-women (and I'm sure some genuinely are anti-women). The only two things Republicans had going for them was national security (and like other's have said, Obama is pretty much following the W manual on that anyway so there's no change there) and the economy. And they wasted their credibility on the economy when W and the Republican Congress went spend crazy during his 8 years in office. So even though Obama has far surpassed W in term of vastly overspending and creating a very mediocre economy, the Republicans can't counter that since they blew their own credibility on it when they had control.

Until the Republicans figure out that there will always be gay people in the world and no matter your religious feelings on the matter in the public sphere they will and should be treated every bit as equally as non-gay people, and until they realize that they have to be open to immigration and that they really should be pushing immigration of as many smart people as possible (definitely expedite immigration of people who want to be entrepeneurs in this country as well as students), and until they realize that it's find to be anti-abortion but you need to be as pro-women after that fact, then they will continue to be a fringe party. Granted, they will be a very important fringe party because they don't seem to be close to losing control of the House anytime soon and no matter how much they get trounced in the Presidential elections having control of the House will be a big deal, but they will be non-factors as long as they push forward candidates like Romney and like several of those Senatorial candidates who spoke so eloquently about rape in the build up to the last elections.

Of course, all this could change if they nominated Christie next time around.

[Pwns]

I agree with you GF that the republicans have just gotten too unrealistic about cetain issues, but that's not the only thing driving the polarization.

The democrats don't see Latinos as being human capital to be developed, they them as a way to darken a lot of red counties and red states. How receptive do you think democrats would be to giving them full amnesty with the caveat that they can't vote in any federal elections for the rest of their lives? Guarantee you they'd never have it.

True the republicans don't have any real ideas for health care, but the Obamacare act is basically crap and I have yet to see any projections showing it will cut costs or increase the overall quality of care.

The "War on Women" canard was pure demagogery and for the msot part women didn't buy it. It was mostly minority women who tipped the scale and gave Obama the 10 point win among women. Romney actually got a majority of the white female vote.

On gay marriage I agree with you but the marriage purity crusaders haven't been a real force for a while now. That's why Obama ended Don't Ask Don't tell because the risk was minimal.

Takes two parties to tango. There is a reason why right-leaning folks who aren't tea-party types would have serious reservations about Obama.

[GannonFan]

I agree with you GF that the republicans have just gotten too unrealistic about cetain issues, but that's not the only thing driving the polarization.

The democrats don't see Latinos as being human capital to be developed, they them as a way to darken a lot of red counties and red states. How receptive do you think democrats would be to giving them full amnesty with the caveat that they can't vote in any federal elections for the rest of their lives? Guarantee you they'd never have it.

Huh? That's a real idea, to give people amnesty and then deny them the vote for their lifetimes? Again, that's just nuts, and falls into Jindal's category of "a dumb idea". Considering that a compromise position just again puts the Republicans into the category of wrong when it comes to immigration, at least as viewed by the majority of people and people who vote.

True the republicans don't have any real ideas for health care, but the Obamacare act is basically crap and I have yet to see any projections showing it will cut costs or increase the overall quality of care.

The "War on Women" canard was pure demagogery and for the msot part women didn't buy it. It was mostly minority women who tipped the scale and gave Obama the 10 point win among women. Romney actually got a majority of the white female vote.

On gay marriage I agree with you but the marriage purity crusaders haven't been a real force for a while now. That's why Obama ended Don't Ask Don't tell because the risk was minimal.

Takes two parties to tango. There is a reason why right-leaning folks who aren't tea-party types would have serious reservations about Obama.

I agree that Obamacare doesn't work, economically speaking, but in the absence of anything else people will gravitate towards that idea. And fundamentally, the real problem is how to wean people away from wanting and getting whatever medical drug or procedure there is as soon as they want it. You can argue that Obamacare is the first step towards rationalized care (i.e. denying care in some cases) and maybe in that regard it has some promise. But we'll need to address unconstrained demand at some point unless that's all we're going to spend money on.

Republicans also haven't been very good about having a singular person to coallesce around and as a result, they appear to have no message. They need to find a serious candidate or two who can win nationally (Christie would be one, maybe a Rubio would be another - as a long shot Jeb Bush, although that last name would be hard to run with) and then start to build around that person. Too many voices in the wind right now, even for a party out of power, and that's not helping them. That's why they can be seen as the party that's against women even when they're not, and why they are seen as the party that is anti-homesexual, which truth be told still is very much accurate in many ways.

[Pwns]

Huh? That's a real idea, to give people amnesty and then deny them the vote for their lifetimes? Again, that's just nuts, and falls into Jindal's category of "a dumb idea". Considering that a compromise position just again puts the Republicans into the category of wrong when it comes to immigration, at least as viewed by the majority of people and people who vote.

Giving them the choice to trade the right to vote for instant amnesty is more sensible than trying mass deportations or cracking down on businesses hiring illegals.

That's not neccesarily what I advocate, though. And my basic point is....if Hispanics were obstinate republican voters republicans would be the ones advocating legislation for expanding opportunities for illegals with the democrats trying to stop it at every turn. The majority may not agree with republicans on immigration, but that doesn't mean they agree with everything in the dream act and other things democrats have advocated.

[kalm]

Huh? That's a real idea, to give people amnesty and then deny them the vote for their lifetimes? Again, that's just nuts, and falls into Jindal's category of "a dumb idea". Considering that a compromise position just again puts the Republicans into the category of wrong when it comes to immigration, at least as viewed by the majority of people and people who vote.

Giving them the choice to trade the right to vote for instant amnesty is more sensible than trying mass deportations or cracking down on businesses hiring illegals.

That's not neccesarily what I advocate, though. And my basic point is....if Hispanics were obstinate republican voters republicans would be the ones advocating legislation for expanding opportunities for illegals with the democrats trying to stop it at every turn. The majority may not agree with republicans on immigration, but that doesn't mean they agree with everything in the dream act and other things democrats have advocated.

What's wrong with cracking down on illegal employers?

[GannonFan]

Huh? That's a real idea, to give people amnesty and then deny them the vote for their lifetimes? Again, that's just nuts, and falls into Jindal's category of "a dumb idea". Considering that a compromise position just again puts the Republicans into the category of wrong when it comes to immigration, at least as viewed by the majority of people and people who vote.

Giving them the choice to trade the right to vote for instant amnesty is more sensible than trying mass deportations or cracking down on businesses hiring illegals.

That's not neccesarily what I advocate, though. And my basic point is....if Hispanics were obstinate republican voters republicans would be the ones advocating legislation for expanding opportunities for illegals with the democrats trying to stop it at every turn. The majority may not agree with republicans on immigration, but that doesn't mean they agree with everything in the dream act and other things democrats have advocated.

They're here, and they're going to stay here. No matter how much we try to deport all how many millions there are, and no matter how much we crack down on businesses hiring them (and really, if we stop them from working they'll still work under the table and qualify for many poverty-related programs - we end up paying for them someway). Amnesty is going to happen, it just makes sense. At some time, though, we need to focus more on good immigration (entrepenuers, investers, high achievers, students, etc) rather than the chain immigration (family members of those who are here) - we are going to need immigration, it's not a bad thing, we just need to do it better.

[CAA Flagship]

Carter

[houndawg]

Huh? That's a real idea, to give people amnesty and then deny them the vote for their lifetimes? Again, that's just nuts, and falls into Jindal's category of "a dumb idea". Considering that a compromise position just again puts the Republicans into the category of wrong when it comes to immigration, at least as viewed by the majority of people and people who vote.

Giving them the choice to trade the right to vote for instant amnesty is more sensible than trying mass deportations or cracking down on businesses hiring illegals.

That's not neccesarily what I advocate, though. And my basic point is....if Hispanics were obstinate republican voters republicans would be the ones advocating legislation for expanding opportunities for illegals with the democrats trying to stop it at every turn. The majority may not agree with republicans on immigration, but that doesn't mean they agree with everything in the dream act and other things democrats have advocated.

They would be if the republicans weren't so unyieldingly racist.

[JohnStOnge]

The problem is that the Republicans have lost the social wars right now - they're wrong on any issue relating to homosexuality, they're wrong on immigration,

Actually, they're right on both issues. It's just that being right on those two issues isn't politically expedient.

[JohnStOnge]

they really should be pushing immigration of as many smart people as possible (definitely expedite immigration of people who want to be entrepeneurs in this country as well as students),

The problem with that statement is that if they want to push immigration of "smart people" that's not going to involve the type of immigration we're getting from Mexico. Sorry to break this to you but what we're getting from Mexico via illegal immigration right now, in a general sense, isn't that. If you're going to push for immigration of "smart people" you're going to be pushing for immigration into the United States by people from places like Sweden, India, China, and Japan.

What we're getting in terms of illegal immigration from Mexico is, on average. a low IQ population. Sorry. I know that's not politically correct. But it's true.

Getting what we're getting from Mexico via illegal immigration is not improving the average intelligence level of the population of this country. It's just not.

[SuperHornet]

The problem is that the Republicans have lost the social wars right now - they're wrong on any issue relating to homosexuality, they're wrong on immigration, and while the abortion position doesn't hurt them (abortion's 50/50 basically anyway), they do come off as anti-women (and I'm sure some genuinely are anti-women).

So former Presidential Candidate Liz Dole (as pro-life as they come) is "anti-woman?"

[danefan]

The problem is that the Republicans have lost the social wars right now - they're wrong on any issue relating to homosexuality, they're wrong on immigration,

Actually, they're right on both issues. It's just that being right on those two issues isn't politically expedient.

Because most people think they're wrong.

[SuperHornet]

That depends on who's conducting polls and how they're skewing the questions, dane. Last I heard, more than half oppose abortion, though that doesn't necessarily translate into the willpower to overturn Roe.

It should tell you something that the original Jane Roe is now speaking out against abortion, even to the point of asking SCOTUS to overturn it a few years ago. Naturally, the libs on the court told her to STFU (though not in so many words).

[GannonFan]

they really should be pushing immigration of as many smart people as possible (definitely expedite immigration of people who want to be entrepeneurs in this country as well as students),

The problem with that statement is that if they want to push immigration of "smart people" that's not going to involve the type of immigration we're getting from Mexico. Sorry to break this to you but what we're getting from Mexico via illegal immigration right now, in a general sense, isn't that. If you're going to push for immigration of "smart people" you're going to be pushing for immigration into the United States by people from places like Sweden, India, China, and Japan.

What we're getting in terms of illegal immigration from Mexico is, on average. a low IQ population. Sorry. I know that's not politically correct. But it's true.

Getting what we're getting from Mexico via illegal immigration is not improving the average intelligence level of the population of this country. It's just not.

So? I don't recall saying anything about boosting immigration from Mexico. Heck, I even said we should move away from chain imigration, that is, immigration based on letting those in first who already have family here.

[GannonFan]

The problem is that the Republicans have lost the social wars right now - they're wrong on any issue relating to homosexuality, they're wrong on immigration, and while the abortion position doesn't hurt them (abortion's 50/50 basically anyway), they do come off as anti-women (and I'm sure some genuinely are anti-women).

So former Presidential Candidate Liz Dole (as pro-life as they come) is "anti-woman?"

Great, so all the Republicans have to do is to have a woman candidate somewhere and they don't have to worry about the other likewise obscure candidates who categorize rape as God's plan. Super.

[BDKJMU]

BTW, this sentiment doesn't occur in a vacuum. More money is being spent on elections than ever before and there seems to be more negative campaigning and blatant attack ads. Also, as Republicans become totally unhinged, the crescendo of blaming and hating from both the media and in congress is off the charts. How many presidents have had a house member cry out "you lie" during a speech? Speaking of which, I wonder what the congressional approval rating is these days...ya think there's a correlation?

Funny thing is, Republicans don't and probably can't complain about the **** that really matters like military spending and intervention, the surveillance state, prosecution of financial crimes banking reform, the War on Drugs. Viva Obushma!

Funny, Republicans were accused of becoming unhinged in 09' by the left after Obama won the 08' election, along with a near supermajority in Congress, and how'd that work out for the Republicans in the 2010 midterms?

[BDKJMU]

The problem is that the Republicans have lost the social wars right now - they're wrong on any issue relating to homosexuality, they're wrong on immigration, and while the abortion position doesn't hurt them (abortion's 50/50 basically anyway), they do come off as anti-women (and I'm sure some genuinely are anti-women). The only two things Republicans had going for them was national security (and like other's have said, Obama is pretty much following the W manual on that anyway so there's no change there) and the economy. And they wasted their credibility on the economy when W and the Republican Congress went spend crazy during his 8 years in office. So even though Obama has far surpassed W in term of vastly overspending and creating a very mediocre economy, the Republicans can't counter that since they blew their own credibility on it when they had control.

Until the Republicans figure out that there will always be gay people in the world and no matter your religious feelings on the matter in the public sphere they will and should be treated every bit as equally as non-gay people, and until they realize that they have to be open to immigration and that they really should be pushing immigration of as many smart people as possible (definitely expedite immigration of people who want to be entrepeneurs in this country as well as students), and until they realize that it's find to be anti-abortion but you need to be as pro-women after that fact, then they will continue to be a fringe party. Granted, they will be a very important fringe party because they don't seem to be close to losing control of the House anytime soon and no matter how much they get trounced in the Presidential elections having control of the House will be a big deal, but they will be non-factors as long as they push forward candidates like Romney and like several of those Senatorial candidates who spoke so eloquently about rape in the build up to the last elections.

Of course, all this could change if they nominated Christie next time around.

Republicans are on the same side on homosexuality as the majority of voters in 30 of 34 states when the issue has been before the voters on the ballots.

Republicans are open to immigration. Just not illegal immigration. Big difference.

[BDKJMU]

Giving them the choice to trade the right to vote for instant amnesty is more sensible than trying mass deportations or cracking down on businesses hiring illegals.

That's not neccesarily what I advocate, though. And my basic point is....if Hispanics were obstinate republican voters republicans would be the ones advocating legislation for expanding opportunities for illegals with the democrats trying to stop it at every turn. The majority may not agree with republicans on immigration, but that doesn't mean they agree with everything in the dream act and other things democrats have advocated.

They're here, and they're going to stay here. No matter how much we try to deport all how many millions there are, and no matter how much we crack down on businesses hiring them (and really, if we stop them from working they'll still work under the table and qualify for many poverty-related programs - we end up paying for them someway). Amnesty is going to happen, it just makes sense. At some time, though, we need to focus more on good immigration (entrepenuers, investers, high achievers, students, etc) rather than the chain immigration (family members of those who are here) - we are going to need immigration, it's not a bad thing, we just need to do it better.

And how'd amnesty work out last time in 1986? 3 million got amnesty, they later brought over 3-5 million family members.

20 years later had 12-20 million illegals. Now there's talk of amnesty for 4 times the number in 86'. And guess what happens every time they start talking about amnesty in DC? Waves of illegals come over. And if the requirement is that they've been working here X number of years In 86' it was back to 82') Most of them will come up with documents that they've been working here x number of years, whether they have or they haven't. And 20 years from now will have another 12-20 million illegals, or maybe more. Then what, another even bigger amnesty in 2040? Rinse, wash, repeat. Anyone see anything wrong with that picture?