This article is about the decline of the Obama presidency in terms of his popularity. The President started with a populaity of above 60% but now languishes in the low 40's. Of course, that is not the most interesting part of the article. Many can blame the languishing economy for this problem. However, what of the Obama paradox? As the article states, "In 2008, Newport notes, trust in the federal government was at a historic low, dipping to around 25%, where it remains today. Yet Obama had offered government as the primary solution to most of the nations woes, calling for big new "investments" in health care, education, infrustructure and energy."
So on the one hand, trust in government had plummeted to historic lows but, on the other hand, the populace chose a man who's collective salvation comes from the one thing in which people had already lost trust.
So what does this say about the American voter? Have they learned a valuable lesson or will they continue to vote for the status quo?
Americans voted for Obama because he represented hope. The democratic machine successfully portrayed GW as a war mongering knuckle dragger and McCain as four more years of the same. I think the final nail in McCain's chances of election was selecting Palin as running mate. I don't think very many wanted her a heartbeat away from the presidency and that alone put his judgment in question.
Americans in general tend to be optimistic and Obama was the more optimistic choice given the alternatives. Even if you didn't think he'd be as splendid in office as the campaign suggested he would be, you don't want four more years of that other guy. That's what sold it, IMO.
Let's see, we have two parties representing the status quo, and you can vote for those parties in the election. My guess is people will vote for the status quo, then.
Originally posted by whodey http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100902/us_time/080599201562900
This article is about the decline of the Obama presidency in terms of his popularity. The President started with a populaity of above 60% but now languishes in the low 40's. Of course, that is not the most interesting part of the article. Many can blame the languishing economy for this proble er? Have they learned a valuable lesson or will they continue to vote for the status quo?
if you live in a place where you've lost trust in the police, does that mean you are philosophically opposed to having police?
Originally posted by Melanerpes if you live in a place where you've lost trust in the police, does that mean you are philosophically opposed to having police?
If you have fundamental problems with the police the last thing you want to do is give them more power over you. If nothing else, the first step would be reform the police, not give them more power.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Let's see, we have two parties representing the status quo, and you can vote for those parties in the election. My guess is people will vote for the status quo, then.
LOL. You have a point there.
Reagan was of the opinion that the Republican party could be reformed but it looks as though he was wrong.
Originally posted by sbacat Americans voted for Obama because he represented hope. The democratic machine successfully portrayed GW as a war mongering knuckle dragger and McCain as four more years of the same. I think the final nail in McCain's chances of election was selecting Palin as running mate. I don't think very many wanted her a heartbeat away from the presidency and that alone d he would be, you don't want four more years of that other guy. That's what sold it, IMO.
So let me get this straight. "W" and McCain both sanctioned wars abroad in which we are still engaged and in which are helping to bankrupt the nation and spent the nation into the ground with massive entitlements and both ignored illegal immigration and you say that Palin is the reason McCain lost? Er...um....right.
You do realize that sniffing glue can be harmful to your health don't you?
Originally posted by whodey If you have fundamental problems with the police the last thing you want to do is give them more power over you. If nothing else, the first step would be reform the police, not give them more power.
most people would prefer giving even a bad police force more power if the alternative is having ruffians ransacking the town unchecked.
but yes, at the core, most of the people want to see the government be reformed, though not necessarily reduced in size. I suspect one of the biggest things people want are representatives who are willing to stick with whatever their position is and speak out strongly for it -- even (especially) if that position isn't highly popular at the moment.
Originally posted by Melanerpes [b]most people would prefer giving even a bad police force more power if the alternative is having ruffians ransacking the town unchecked.
But what do you do when you can't tell the ruffians from the police? It seems to me that the government used tax payer money to bail out corporate America and then corporate America turned around and helped bail states out like California all courtesy of taxpayer dollars. Smucks!!
Originally posted by whodey So let me get this straight. "W" and McCain both sanctioned wars abroad in which we are still engaged and in which are helping to bankrupt the nation and spent the nation into the ground with massive entitlements and both ignored illegal immigration and you say that Palin is the reason McCain lost? Er...um....right.
You do realize that sniffing glue can be harmful to your health don't you?
Palin was a target big as the side of a barn. how could the Dems miss?
D D D 2008 McCain/Obama
R R R 2004 Bush/Kerry
R R R 2000 Bush/Gore
D D D 1996 Gore/Clinton
D D D 1992 Bush/Clinton
R R R 1988 Bush/Dukakis
R R R 1984 Reagan/Mondale
? ? R 1980 Reagan/Carter
D D D 1976 Ford/Carter
R R R 1972 Nixon/McGovern
R R R 1968 Nixon/Humphrey
D D D 1964 Goldwater/Johnson
D D D 1960 Nixon/Kennedy
The Obama paradox
02 Sep '10 15:442 edits
Back to Top