The Audacity of Hopelessness

[RJKarl]

I think Deacman is probably correct that Obama probably rode higher popularity numbers when he entered the WH, and he's correct that that election was very close until the last week. About a week out hit the 1 year anniversary of the Iranian hostage crisis, and even though Reagan frightened a lot of folks at the time, the voting broke his way big time in that last week - folks just wanted a change. That said, the atmospheres in DC were very different in the 80s than they were the last 8 years. The Dems had congress in the 80s, but at the end of the day, Reagan and Tip O'Neill would get things done. Reagan didn't face the massive resistance to literally everything he wanted to do that Obama has. Given that hostility, it's impressive that Obama's favorability numbers have meandered to north of 50%. (Although I believe part of the reason for the positive numbers is the horrific slate of candidates that both parties had this time around.)

Reagan did not get attacked personally or racially or his family as deeply and as heinously as Obama, his wife and his kids were. This should not be in dispute by anyone. Reagan's Americanism was never attacked. His faith was never attacked.

People didn't like Reagan's policies for a while, but he was never treated like Obama has been.

 

[ChrisL68]

The level of vitriol isn't even close. Thanks talk radio.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[TownieDeac]

Yeah it's pretty simple. Folks may have disagreed with Reagan's politics, but people viscerally hate Obama beyond what he stands for politically.

 

[cville deac]

Reagan did not get attacked personally or racially or his family as deeply and as heinously as Obama, his wife and his kids were. This should not be in dispute by anyone. Reagan's Americanism was never attacked. His faith was never attacked.

People didn't like Reagan's policies for a while, but he was never treated like Obama has been.

Agree completely.

 

[Deacfreak07]

If Ronald Reagan didn't enter office with a mandate in 1980, such a thing doesn't exist.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

If Ronald Reagan didn't enter office with a mandate in 1980, such a thing doesn't exist.

you don't say

 

[DeacMan]

Yeah it's pretty simple. Folks may have disagreed with Reagan's politics, but people viscerally hate Obama beyond what he stands for politically.

And if this is the case, why do his historic approval ratings fare better than any President since Kennedy? Again, you need to separate the wheat from the chafe, which few of you seem willing to do. You're acting as if the "birthers" have somehow had a massive impact on Obama. The polling data suggests he held up just fine relative to his predecessors. I may not like Obama's policies, but he strikes me as a good, decent human being. Contrast that with the way many came after Reagan from the get go - a war mongering hawk prone to start WWIII.

 

[Deacfreak07]

And if this is the case, why do his historic approval ratings fare better than any President since Kennedy? Again, you need to separate the wheat from the chafe, which few of you seem willing to do. You're acting as if the "birthers" have somehow had a massive impact on Obama. The polling data suggests he held up just fine relative to his predecessors. I may not like Obama's policies, but he strikes me as a good, decent human being. Contrast that with the way many came after Reagan from the get go - a war mongering hawk prone to start WWIII.

You should peruse the Facebook thread sometime.

 

[ChrisL68]

Birthers? Like the president elect?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[TownieDeac]

separating wheat from chaff probably causes some to chafe

 

[PhDeac]

And if this is the case, why do his historic approval ratings fare better than any President since Kennedy? Again, you need to separate the wheat from the chafe, which few of you seem willing to do. You're acting as if the "birthers" have somehow had a massive impact on Obama. The polling data suggests he held up just fine relative to his predecessors. I may not like Obama's policies, but he strikes me as a good, decent human being. Contrast that with the way many came after Reagan from the get go - a war mongering hawk prone to start WWIII.

The most prominent birther is the President-Elect. I'm not sure you can argue the birther movement didn't have a massive impact. At the very least, leading the birther movement was not a blow to Trump's credibility.

 

[RJKarl]

And if this is the case, why do his historic approval ratings fare better than any President since Kennedy? Again, you need to separate the wheat from the chafe, which few of you seem willing to do. You're acting as if the "birthers" have somehow had a massive impact on Obama. The polling data suggests he held up just fine relative to his predecessors. I may not like Obama's policies, but he strikes me as a good, decent human being. Contrast that with the way many came after Reagan from the get go - a war mongering hawk prone to start WWIII.

Why don't Reagan's much higher exit approval ratings count against his being attacked but do against Obama?

Over 1/3 of Republicans still think Obama isn't an American. Over 40% still think he's a Muslim. That creates an atmosphere of deep seated hatred unlike anything Reagan ever felt.

 

[Deacfreak07]

Why don't Reagan's much higher exit approval ratings count against his being attacked but do against Obama?

Over 1/3 of Republicans still think Obama isn't an American. Over 40% still think he's a Muslim. That creates an atmosphere of deep seated hatred unlike anything Reagan ever felt.

Those numbers do kinda put a dent in this weird narrative that Obama was universally respected a person just disagreed with on policy positions.

 

[knowell]

Yeah it's pretty simple. Folks may have disagreed with Reagan's politics, but people viscerally hate Obama beyond what he stands for politically.

This is completely wrong. There may be a small minority who hate him. His approval ratings have always been stronger than the approval ratings of his policies. He had near record levels of approval upon inauguration.

The majority of Americans like Obama personally.

He was unable to negotiate with congress because he would not give up something of value to get something of value. Reagan compromised on raising taxes in order to get what he needed passed.
You can blame congress all you want, but they would have worked with Obama had he offered something they wanted or needed. That is how the game is played.

It is also the reason non-ideological presidents tend to be the most successful. Clinton is the perfect example. Trump may do well on this regard as well since he is not ideological.

 

[Deacfreak07]

This is completely wrong. There may be a small minority who hate him. His approval ratings have always been stronger than the approval ratings of his policies. He had near record levels of approval upon inauguration.

The majority of Americans like Obama personally.

He was unable to negotiate with congress because he would not give up something of value to get something of value. Reagan compromised on raising taxes in order to get what he needed passed.
You can blame congress all you want, but they would have worked with Obama had he offered something they wanted or needed. That is how the game is played.

It is also the reason non-ideological presidents tend to be the most successful. Clinton is the perfect example. Trump may do well on this regard as well since he is not ideological.

https://youtu.be/W-A09a_gHJc

 

[Strickland33]

This is completely wrong. There may be a small minority who hate him. His approval ratings have always been stronger than the approval ratings of his policies. He had near record levels of approval upon inauguration.

The majority of Americans like Obama personally.

He was unable to negotiate with congress because he would not give up something of value to get something of value. Reagan compromised on raising taxes in order to get what he needed passed.
You can blame congress all you want, but they would have worked with Obama had he offered something they wanted or needed. That is how the game is played.

It is also the reason non-ideological presidents tend to be the most successful. Clinton is the perfect example. Trump may do well on this regard as well since he is not ideological.

You can't possibly believe this, right?

A large minority of Americans hates the Obamas and nothing they say or do can change that. That minority arguably elected Trump, who others have pointed out was also the most prestigious and vocal birther.

Republicans in congress were vocally obstructionist for no apparent reason, contradicting themselves and their interests left and right, in utterly predictable ways. But before we get too partisan, Dems have been guilty of this, too.

 

[IrishSlim]

This is completely wrong. There may be a small minority who hate him. His approval ratings have always been stronger than the approval ratings of his policies. He had near record levels of approval upon inauguration.

The majority of Americans like Obama personally.

He was unable to negotiate with congress because he would not give up something of value to get something of value. Reagan compromised on raising taxes in order to get what he needed passed.
You can blame congress all you want, but they would have worked with Obama had he offered something they wanted or needed. That is how the game is played.

It is also the reason non-ideological presidents tend to be the most successful. Clinton is the perfect example. Trump may do well on this regard as well since he is not ideological.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Obama's Approval ratings don't show the consistent 8 years of race tinged vitriol he and Michelle have received from the conservative media and the white rural/evangelical Christian right. Is there any argument that America isn't more politically polarized than before the internet age?

 

[knowell]

You can't possibly believe this, right?

A large minority of Americans hates the Obamas and nothing they say or do can change that. That minority arguably elected Trump, who others have pointed out was also the most prestigious and vocal birther.

Republicans in congress were vocally obstructionist for no apparent reason, contradicting themselves and their interests left and right, in utterly predictable ways. But before we get too partisan, Dems have been guilty of this, too.

You can't possibly believe this, can you?

 

[knowell]

Nixon was pretty successful until he decided to be a criminal. Good thing we did not hire someone who has already made that choice.