Bush Gaining on Obama; Or, I Told You So!

[David Floyd]

Navigate:

* POLITICO
* Ben Smith
* Bush closes the gap

Main Content
Bush closes the gap - Ben Smith: Bush closes the gap
December 09, 2009
Categories:

* Polls

Bush closes the gap

Public Policy Polling:

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that's somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country's difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1209/Bush_closes_the_gap.html

Not a long article, but it just reflects something I said last November, that within a year, we'd be wishing for Dubya back. Looks like I was off...by a month

[Winston]

Just 11 months for voters to spot an empty suit.

Here in Europe it will likely take decades.

[Imran Siddiqui]

44% = "we'd be wishing"?

Who exactly is this "we"?

[rah]

Hmm, even being the loyal repug that I am, I'm not wishing for Bush back.
(this still doesn't mean I'm an Obama fan)

[Ben Kenobi]

[Ming]

There is still some "hope" for Obama... there was none for Bush.

[David Floyd]

Anyone who still thinks Obama is a force for "positive change" is a bigger idiot than...well, frankly I can't think of anything stupid enough to compare those people to. As predicted by me, and many others, Obama is a windbag with ZERO substance.

But the main point is, this is one of the first reports I've seen indicating that my prediction might be a bit accurate - ie, that after a year or so of Obama, we'd be wishing for Bush back. Not that Bush was that great, Obama's just that bad.

Imran,

44% = "we'd be wishing"?

Who exactly is this "we"?

According to the article, it's a poll. A single poll, yes, but an indicator all the same.

[Theben]

I think some people are confusing better times under Bush (for the most part) than the lousy year under Obama. If that's the measure then screw them all and bring back Bill.

Some people don't recall how badly Reagan's outlook was after year 1. There's still plenty of time for Obama to recover in the polls.

Lastly atm all politicians are looking bad in the voters eyes. It doesn't necessarily bode well for repugs either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

According to the article, it's a poll. A single poll, yes, but an indicator all the same.

And once again, who is this "we"?

You can answer that question can't you?

If you were referring to the American public, 44% is, obviously, less than even a simple majority.

[Ben Kenobi]

I have been waiting to post that picture for Ages, DF. Thanks for the thread.

[David Floyd]

Imran, of course it's less than a majority. It's also more, a lot more, than the number who would have voted for a 3rd term for Dubya, if given the opportunity.

Theben, I love the "Good for the goose but not for the gander"-esque arguments you leftists make. To wit:

I think some people are confusing better times under Bush (for the most part) than the lousy year under Obama. If that's the measure then screw them all and bring back Bill.

So, wait. Clinton, rather than Bush and Reagan, gets the credit for the good times during his Presidency, but Dubya doesn't get credit for the good times in his? Also, politics is the art of "what have you done for me lately?", and in spite of lavish campaign promises, Obama is delivered jack-nothing that is in line with his promises.

Some people don't recall how badly Reagan's outlook was after year 1. There's still plenty of time for Obama to recover in the polls.

Yeah, but Reagan's first year wasn't so bad that close to half of the electorate wanted ****ing Carter back. Actually, that might even be a not-half-bad analogy to use, here...

Lastly atm all politicians are looking bad in the voters eyes. It doesn't necessarily bode well for repugs either.

And here's the kicker. I love it how, during a liberal Presidency/Congress, when things don't go well, it's the fault of "all the politicians", and not the liberals, but when conservatives are in power, it's their fault, and if only the noble liberals were in office with a majority, things would be oh-so-much-better. Well, I guess this time around is going to be the perfect counterargument to that little gem of bull****.

The Congressional Democrats bear at least as much responsibility for the financial meltdown as the Republicans do, and that's a fact - no one's claiming otherwise. The only claim here is that Obama/Pelosi/Reid (especially Obama) swore up and down that they could fix it, and haven't even come CLOSE to delivering. And the kicker is, in many cases, it's their own party holding them up, not JUST the Republicans. You've got Mary Landrieu selling her vote to her own party on health care for hundreds of millions in pork for Louisiana, and that's just the HIGHEST PROFILE example

[Sharpe]

So, wait. Clinton, rather than Bush and Reagan, gets the credit for the good times during his Presidency, but Dubya doesn't get credit for the good times in his?

There were good times in Dubya's presidency?

[Wezil]

Palin in 2012

Let's get the job done.

[Elok]

There's a movie out in theaters now called "Collapse." It's just this one guy ranting at the screen for like an hour and a half, telling us that the current financial crisis is the forerunner to the demise of civilization as we know it.

I wonder if he mentions Palin.

[Provost Harrison]

Could be worse, he could be in Brown's position...an election looming in half a year and not a chance of avoiding being annihilated...