Voters In Fox Poll Echo Other Findings That Obama Is Winning “Bipartisan” War
Tweet
It’s like the beltway and the MSM don’t know diddly poo.
Voters say by 66 percent to 28 percent that Obama had tried to reach out to Republicans and be bipartisan about the package, and they say 60 percent to 33 percent that the Republicans have not sincerely tried to act in a bipartisan way. Overall, voters approve of the job congressional Democrats are doing by 46 percent to 45 percent and disapprove of the GOP’s performance by 56 percent to 34 percent. Obama’s approval to disapproval ratio is 60 percent to 26 percent, down from 65 percent to 16 percent in late January.
41 Responses to “Voters In Fox Poll Echo Other Findings That Obama Is Winning “Bipartisan” War”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Clearly this is good news for the GOP going into 2010.
Obama’s disapproval rating jumped 10 points in less than a month? Damn!
And while you’re crowing about the aggregate numbers, there’s no mistaking that the stimulus bill kept polling lower and lower the longer the bill was scrutinized. No wonder Obama was in a rush to get it out the door!
As I said when his first approval came out, much of it was inauguration halo. 55-60% will do just fine, and it’s a far slight better than the 20-something’s of Previous Occupant.
55-60% will do just fine, and it’s a far slight better than the 20-something’s of Previous Occupant. OW
Ummm, it’s about exactly where Previous’ was after the first month. But then again, the stock market wasn’t tanking like it is now, so he didn’t have that working against him.
So I guess a very slight edge to The Current One.
But then again there’s the fawning press. A fawning press that was not quite so fawning this time 8 years ago but now realizes it is dying and that sees in Current Occupant possibly their only hope for survival.
Edge goes back to Previous Occupant for the one-month time period assessment.
A fawning press that was not quite so fawning this time 8 years ago
Well, that’s bullshit.
Edge goes back to Previous Occupant
He whose name shall not be mentioned.
Bear in mind, Previous Occupant was still blowing the Supreme Court this time 8 years ago.
A fawning press that was not quite so fawning this time 8 years ago
Are you recalling anything in particular?
Are you recalling anything in particular? Qibbie
When I walk into a Barnes and Noble and see and Obama section under the ‘Religion’ sign and look at the magazine display and every fourth magazine has his picture on the cover, even Men’s Health and Best life for chrissakes, and displays of Inaugural editions of Newsweek magazine, then yeah, Qibbie, I am hard-pressed to recall the same phenomenon going on at this point 8 years ago. As a matter of fact, I recall a lot of people in the press still smarting about the Florida recount.
And if you want to stick Chris Matthews in my face, I’m not so sure saying Previous Occupant was his preferred choice for having a beer with is quite the same thing as saying Current Occupant gave him a thrill going up his leg when he spoke.
So yeah, fawning press; huge edge to that one, the Current One.
When I walk into a Barnes and Noble and see and Obama section under the ‘Religion’ sign
This actually happened to you?
And if you want to stick Chris Matthews in my face, I’m not so sure saying Previous Occupant was his preferred choice for having a beer with is quite the same thing as saying Current Occupant gave him a thrill going up his leg when he spoke.
How about when Mr. Matthews was so noticeably excited by Mr. Bush’s “manly characteristic” in his flight suit?
A fawning press that was not quite so fawning this time 8 years ago
So you’re NOT recalling anything specific about coverage 8 years ago?
I am hard-pressed to recall the same phenomenon going on at this point 8 years ago.
Not that it matters to you, but was the President 8 years ago an individual who, up to that point, was part of a demographic that had never achieved that sort of landmark before? You know, sort of an historic benchmark for the Republic?
No? Then STFU and deal.
Hey, Obama’s doing it without any shitty 9-11 crutch either. That was a horrible event on so many levels.
So you’re NOT recalling anything specific about coverage 8 years ago? Qib
I thought that was pretty specific. I can’t provide pictures of what my local Barnes and Noble looked like 8 years ago, if that’s what you mean, but my memory I’d have to say is accurate enough that I can recall the amount of magazine covers and articles is nowhere near the same. And as to Chrissie and Previous One’s flightsuit, I’d still have to give the edge in creepy adoration to the thrill going up the leg. I might say among a group of my friends that a guy wasn’t a bad looking guy, and I’d expect a rash of shit coming back at me such that I’d have to qualify it about 10 more times, but if I said that guy gave me a thrill running up my leg when he spoke, Katie bar the fucking door.
Again, edge to The One.
“But then again there’s the fawning press. A fawning press that was not quite so fawning this time 8 years ago…”
Are you kidding me?
Ummm, it’s about exactly where Previous’ was after the first month. But then again, the stock market wasn’t tanking like it is now, so he didn’t have that working against him.
Bush’s overall approval rating – especially compared to Clinton and Reagan – were some of the worst ever.
Wait, magazines are reflecting a popular president by putting him on their covers? I mean, its not like putting Barack Obama on the cover sells magazines or anything, right? I thought you guys liked capitalism? It’s all part of the conspiracy!
It’s like the bastard American people voted for Barack Obama overwhelmingly, like him, support him, and want him to succeed!
IDIOTS!
No? Then STFU and deal. Duros62
I like that one, Duracell. If I use that on another blog I’ll have to remember to credit you.
I’m not complaining about The Current Occupant’s fawning press, not in this case anyway. Since Previous One and Current One had very similar poll numbers after their respective Month One’s, I was just trying to control for extraneous factors. Stock market cratering that is having little effect on Current’s (an edge to him) vs. tepid press coverage for Previous’ compared to fawning adoration for Current’s (big edge for Previous).
I’ll let you deal the next hand.
Wait, magazines are reflecting a popular president by putting him on their covers? I mean, its not like putting Barack Obama on the cover sells magazines or anything, right? OW
Wait a second, you just told me you had to dumb it down for me to explain the racist angle of why you felt one obscure cartoonist represented the entire right wing, so forgive me if I have to spell this out. My point isn’t that he’s not popular or that he doesn’t help sell magazines, it’s that that kind of unprecedented very positive coverage cannot help but boost his poll numbers. I would think, A LOT. So a fair comparison to Bush’s very similar poll numbers should have that controlled for.
It’s be no different than me claiming October-January 2001-2 poll numbers for Bush in the 70′s would be a valid comparison to Obama’s this coming Oct-Jan time period.
Actually, I’m marking my calendar right now to do that very thing next fall.
It’s be no different than me claiming October-January 2001-2 poll numbers for Bush in the 70’s would be a valid comparison to Obama’s this coming Oct-Jan time period.
Actually, I’m marking my calendar right now to do that very thing next fall.
Barring some sort of national tragic event that occurs somewhere in the previous 30 days?
He Who Shall Not Be Named got an artificial jump in the polls in October and you know the reason why.
Don’t even go there, Denny.
Even OW’s very own Media Research Center notes the embarrassing media bias against Bush 8 years ago.
Grading TV Coverage of Bush’s 100 Days
Proof positive.
He Who Shall Not Be Named got an artificial jump in the polls in October and you know the reason why. Duros62
Of course I know why, that’s my point. It wouldn’t be a fair comparison for Obama. Just the same, there’s some artificiality to Obama’s polling (I believe, I don’t have any hard numbers, fafaroo, for whenever you show up to ask)right now due to the economic crisis and a very favorable press.
Yeah, yeah, he gets favorable press because he’s popular. But he’s also polling at least a little better because of the favorable press, IMHO. This time 8 years ago I think Bush was getting the bum’s rush by Rather and Katie about raising the fake arsenic crisis, saying Bush was trying to poison us all.
OW’s very own Media Research Center
Whuh HUNH?
I might say among a group of my friends that a guy wasn’t a bad looking guy, and I’d expect a rash of shit coming back at me such that I’d have to qualify it about 10 more times, but if I said that guy gave me a thrill running up my leg when he spoke, Katie bar the fucking door.
How about if you publicly admired the bulge in his pants?
‘Cause that’s just what Mr. Matthews did, sitting alongside Pat Buchanan, as Mr. Bush paraded across the deck of the aircraft carrier.
I can’t provide pictures of what my local Barnes and Noble looked like 8 years ago, if that’s what you mean,
No, I’m asking if you actually saw, with your own little eyes, books about Obama in the religion section of YOUR local store.
Seeing a picture on Ms. Malkin’s website is NOT “walking into your local Barnes and Noble.”
How about if you publicly admired the bulge in his pants? QIB
What did he say? G-damn, not that I’m saying there’s necessarily anything wrong with it, but that dude must have some serious man-crushes going on. I guess that takes it back to about neutral for purposes of the control factor for equating the poll numbers. Except that the bulge comment had to have come much later in his first term. They jury’s still out on how Chrissie’s crush on Obama plays out. My money’s on him to outdo the Bush bulge- jonesing on Obama fairly soon.
That is, unless he’s been issued a zero-tolerance policy by his bosses at MSNBO.
Seeing a picture on Ms. Malkin’s website is NOT “walking into your local Barnes and Noble.” -QIB
Maybe that picture on Michelle’s website that I dreamed about last night made me think today it was an actual memory. Except how do you know I don’t live in that town in Texas?
Shit, Qibbie, You checked! You’re harshing my buzz, and I had a good one worked up here waiting for The Office.
Even OW’s very own Media Research Center
WTF? I’d never be associated with those idiots. MRC found liberal bias? I’m shocked, shocked, shocked to find gambling going on here.
Just testing to see who was awake, OW. I thought it was enough on the obvious side that no one would even blink.
Dennis says: “Just testing to see who was awake…”
I think you are lying here.
Dennis says:
February 19, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Even OW’s very own Media Research Center notes the embarrassing media bias against Bush 8 years ago.
No, I seem to remember the press telling the Dems to “get over it” and gushing about the faux Texas-ification of DC.
I will buy all of your arguments of the press’s coronation of Obama when he invades another country on false pretenses and they accept it without asking any tough questions.
When I walk into a Barnes and Noble and see and Obama section under the ‘Religion’ sign and look at the magazine display and every fourth magazine has his picture on the cover, even Men’s Health and Best life for chrissakes, and displays of Inaugural editions of Newsweek magazine, then yeah, Qibbie,
I have no way of verifying this one way or the other.
Zython-
It was a goof on this, Zython
Bookstore features Obama under ‘religion’
I mistakenly assumed the majority of people here who scour the conservative blogs daily would’ve known what I was talking about. Apparently I also mistakenly assumed that people here again who scour the conservative blogs daily would get the reference to MRC vs. Media Matters.
But if you want to know what I’m talking about as pertains to B&N, just walk in to one of the big bookstores and look around when you first step in the door and take mental notes.
So, to clarify, you’re saying *all* or at least *most* B&N book stores have Obama books classified as religion ? Not just one instance that some wingnut photographed and passed around a mailing list ?
So, to clarify, you’re saying *all* or at least *most* B&N book stores have Obama books classified as religion ?–RePete
To clarify, I’m saying comparing Bush’s late-term poll numbers to Obama’s first 3 weeks poll numbers is fallacious, deceptive and dishonest. And anyone not recognizing that in this thread is in effect either agreeing with the comparison or too embarrassed to call it out for what it is, both of which are sad.
World Nut Daily? Are you doing this on purpose? Every single time people ask you to back up an assertion you link to some wack job right wing site. I mean, can you find a legitimate news source to substantiate your allegations on a regular basis? Come on.
Although WorldNetDaily did break that vital North American Union story.
Oliver-
I was joking about my bookstore having Obama books in their religion section, like the one pictured did. But I have listed links to many depictions of Obama as a religious figure before. This one was meant to be a bit of a light-hearted jab, and I’ve said that, although I’m a bit surprised to have to spell it out to you since you, I assumed, were on all the conservative blogs daily and likely seen it.
That wasn’t the point. The point was, still unaddressed by you, that the comparison of Bush’s to Obama’s poll numbers was not only deceptive because of the different time periods, something you and Media Matters would be all over if a conservative had done the same, but also by the fact that if you had honestly compared the two time periods it would be deceptive not to factor in the heaps of lovingkindess Obama’s receiving from his adoring press.
So yeah, World Net Daily, I did that on purpose. Thought people would see the humor in it. Oviously not, even though the picture is what it is, and no one has claimed it was doctored.
M’kay?
Or it went like this;
“Hey, where do you want be to put all these Obama books?”
“Over there. Nobody’s buying those anyway.”
“Yeah, but what about the Religion sign?”
“Oh, we’ll change that later.”
Adventures in retail. It happens.
And ain’t it just like the wingnuts to freak out about it?
The point was, still unaddressed by you, that the comparison of Bush’s to Obama’s poll numbers was not only deceptive because of the different time periods,
Yeah, but you brought that up. Nobody else did. Oliver was comparing Present Occupant’s poll numbers TODAY to Previous Occupant’s poll numbers in JANUARY of this year.
Unfair? Maybe. So?
Summarizing.
Dennis wrote:
When I walk into a Barnes and Noble and see and Obama section under the ‘Religion’ sign
We have determined now that the “when” in question is actually “never.”
We have determined now that the “when” in question is actually “never.”– QIB
Except that even discounting the admission several times that I was being playful from the get-go and even posted the link to the picture that I was referring to that I just assumed nearly everyone here but the completely clueless was already well aware of since we discuss Obama’s messianic portrayal so often, you are not allowing for the possibility that the bookstore in question might actually be the bookstore I walked in to.
Gawd, Qibbie, it’s like everyone here seems to have an obsession with the ‘gotcha’ game here. Like you’re interviewing for OW’s new gameshow “We Checked!”.
Howie Doin’? We Checked!
you are not allowing for the possibility that the bookstore in question might actually be the bookstore I walked in to.
To paraphrase, it didn’t happen, but it could have.
Fake but accurate. Gotcha.
Jeezus, Duros. How many times do I have to tell you I was playing around, I just never thought guys like you and QIBie would’ve taken it seriously. Do you really think I need to make the case that Obama books are in the religion section of my book store to make the case that Obama has gotten far greater press coverage in his first month than Bush did?
Like I’ve asked you before, do you guys come here to get more depressed?
Just so we’re clear, Denny, I didn’t say “Gotcha” in the “J’accuse!” sense. I meant in the ” Oh, I see what you did there” sense.