ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this holiday season!

Obama Poll Watch -- December, 2011

[ Posted Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 – 16:07 PST ]

Trending Upwards

President Obama had a pretty good month last month in the job approval polls, bettering his standing in both approval and disapproval by roughly three-fourths of percentage point. This may not sound like that big a deal, but it was the second straight month of solid gains for the president in both categories.

Because it was also the last month of the year, we will take a closer look at how Obama did in 2011 at the end of the article. For now, let's take a look at the new overall chart for Obama:

Obama Approval -- December 2011

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

December, 2011

December brought four pieces of goodwill together for Obama. The first came at the beginning of the month, as the unemployment number sharply dropped, from 9.0 percent to 8.6 percent. That's a significant change, and it's one of those things which provides a background effect in presidential polling. When people begin feeling better about the economy, it translates into feeling better about the man in the Oval Office. The second good thing for Obama in December was the extensive media coverage of all the American troops pulling out of Iraq. Americans like to see soldiers returning home and reuniting with their loved ones, especially right before a holiday. The holiday season itself was the third influence on the polls, as people generally feel better about their fellow man during the end-of-year holiday season (another "background" effect). To wrap up the month, Obama won a staredown contest with the House Republicans, who caved in and voted the extension of Obama's payroll tax breaks, right before they all went home.

All of this added up to poll numbers which steadily improved all month long for the president. This led to a 0.7 percent improvement in both approval and disapproval in Obama's December monthly average. Obama wound up with a 45.1 percent approval rate for the month, and a 49.5 disapproval rate. Added in with November's numbers, Obama has bettered both numbers by 1.7 percent in the past two months.

 

Overall Trends

Obama entered December actually trending downward, but the release of the good news on the unemployment front turned this right back around for him. His lowest daily average approval was the first day of the month, at 43.0 percent. He also hit his highest daily disapproval average on the first as well, at 51.6 percent. But throughout the month, these numbers got better and better, and he hit a daily high of 47.6 percent approval just before the end of the month. He closed out the month with his lowest daily disapproval at 47.8 percent. This was the widest swing he's experienced since last June, and the daily average numbers he was hitting were better than any he's seen since July. More good news: for the second straight month, Obama did not post any all-time lows or highs for either approval or disapproval.

The trendline itself is probably the best news Obama got in December, because it was so solidly in one direction. Obama's final daily numbers were both 1.7 percent better than even the monthly average he posted in December, which leaves him plenty of room to grow in January.

This month will be politically consumed with two things: the Republican primary race, and the State of the Union speech. Both seem tailor-made to help Obama improve his numbers even further, especially if the good news continues on the unemployment front (December's number will be released this Friday). Congress won't be in session for much of the month as well, which is also a good thing (as far as the public is concerned). When they do get back, they will be refighting a battle Obama has already largely won -- extending the payroll tax break for the rest of the year -- which also favors Obama's position.

To put all of this in some sort of perspective, let's take a look at Obama's entire previous year, in greater (expanded) detail:

Obama detail -- 2011

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

This has been a pretty wild rollercoaster, at least compared to Obama's first two years in office. From December to December, Obama was up, down, up again, and then down again, until he began to claw his way back at the very end. The large spike right in the middle (in May) was the death of Osama Bin Laden -- the largest "bounce" Obama's ever gotten, but one that faded quickly away as the debt ceiling battle was fought over the summer.

Even with such and up-and-down year, though, Obama closed out December of 2011 almost exactly where he was in December of 2010, in terms of approval. The difference between where he started (45.5) and where he finished (45.1) was only four-tenths of a point. The difference in disapproval was larger, however (1.4 percent worse).

Obama's numbers "crossed over" each other four separate times during the year, although two of those can be attributed to the Bin Laden bounce. Looking ahead to the future, Obama is within reach of achieving this crossover point during January -- which would put him into "above water" territory right when he needs it, at the beginning of his re-election campaign.

So while 2011 was a volatile year for the president, he didn't lose all that much ground when the year was over. He ended the year on an upswing, and while he still isn't in great shape for the election, he is heading upwards and things are looking a lot better than they did a few months ago.

 

[Obama Poll Watch Data:]

Sources And Methodology

ObamaPollWatch.com is an admittedly amateur effort, but we do try to stay professional when it comes to revealing our sources and methodology. All our source data comes from RealClearPolitics.com; specifically from their daily presidential approval ratings "poll of polls" graphic page. We take their daily numbers, log them, and then average each month's data into a single number -- which is then shown on our monthly charts here (a "poll of polls of polls," if you will...). You can read a much-more detailed explanation of our source data and methodology on our "About Obama Poll Watch" page, if you're interested.

Questions or comments? Use the Email Chris page to drop me a private note.

 

Column Archives

[Nov 11], [Oct 11], [Sep 11], [Aug 11], [Jul 11], [Jun 11], [May 11], [Apr 11], [Mar 11], [Feb 11], [Jan 11], [Dec 10], [Nov 10], [Oct 10], [Sep 10], [Aug 10], [Jul 10], [Jun 10], [May 10], [Apr 10], [Mar 10], [Feb 10], [Jan 10], [Dec 09], [Nov 09], [Oct 09], [Sep 09], [Aug 09], [Jul 09], [Jun 09], [May 09], [Apr 09], [Mar 09]

 

Obama's All-Time Statistics

Monthly
Highest Monthly Approval -- 2/09 -- 63.4%
Lowest Monthly Approval -- 10/11 -- 43.4%

Highest Monthly Disapproval -- 9/11, 10/11 -- 51.2%
Lowest Monthly Disapproval -- 1/09 -- 19.6%

Daily
Highest Daily Approval -- 2/15/09 -- 65.5%
Lowest Daily Approval -- 10/9/11 -- 42.0%

Highest Daily Disapproval -- 8/30/11 -- 53.2%
Lowest Daily Disapproval -- 1/29/09 -- 19.3%

 

Obama's Raw Monthly Data

[All-time high in bold, all-time low underlined.]

Month -- (Approval / Disapproval / Undecided)
12/11 -- 45.1 / 49.5 / 5.4
11/11 -- 44.4 / 50.2 / 5.4
10/11 -- 43.4 / 51.2 / 5.4
09/11 -- 43.5 / 51.2 / 5.3
08/11 -- 43.8 / 50.7 / 5.5
07/11 -- 46.2 / 47.8 / 6.0
06/11 -- 48.5 / 46.0 / 5.5
05/11 -- 51.4 / 43.1 / 5.5
04/11 -- 46.4 / 48.2 / 5.4
03/11 -- 48.1 / 46.4 / 5.5
02/11 -- 49.4 / 44.5 / 6.1
01/11 -- 48.5 / 45.7 / 5.8
12/10 -- 45.5 / 48.1 / 6.4
11/10 -- 45.5 / 49.0 / 5.5
10/10 -- 45.5 / 49.1 / 5.4
09/10 -- 45.7 / 49.7 / 4.6
08/10 -- 45.3 / 49.5 / 5.2
07/10 -- 46.6 / 47.4 / 6.0
06/10 -- 47.6 / 46.7 / 5.7
05/10 -- 48.1 / 45.5 / 6.4
04/10 -- 47.8 / 46.5 / 5.7
03/10 -- 48.1 / 46.4 / 5.5
02/10 -- 47.9 / 46.1 / 6.0
01/10 -- 49.2 / 45.3 / 5.5
12/09 -- 49.4 / 44.9 / 5.7
11/09 -- 51.1 / 43.5 / 5.4
10/09 -- 52.2 / 41.9 / 5.9
09/09 -- 52.7 / 42.0 / 5.3
08/09 -- 52.8 / 40.8 / 6.4
07/09 -- 56.4 / 38.1 / 5.5
06/09 -- 59.8 / 33.6 / 6.6
05/09 -- 61.4 / 31.6 / 7.0
04/09 -- 61.0 / 30.8 / 8.2
03/09 -- 60.9 / 29.9 / 9.2
02/09 -- 63.4 / 24.4 / 12.2
01/09 -- 63.1 / 19.6 / 17.3

 

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

60 Comments on “Obama Poll Watch -- December, 2011”

  1. [1] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Hey CW- Just want to say a quick "good call" on the Obama recess appointments.

    I only wish he'd of made more.

    But Cordray is a great fight to pick. Let's have the battle about the Consumer Protection Bureau out in the open. Let's shed some light on who is for protecting consumers, and who is against it.

    These are exactly the type of fights he should be picking.

    I think I may like this election year Obama.
    -David

  2. [2] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    CW,

    i think it would have made more sense legally if obama had done as you suggested and adjourned congress pursuant to article 2, section 3, clause 2. since the senate and house couldn't agree to a date, the strictly constitutional thing to do would be to declare congress adjourned before making recess appointments. if future presidents end up doing the same thing, perhaps the senate would finally start getting off their collective keysters and give nominees an up or down vote. even if it's not a president or a nominee i like, that level of gridlock isn't healthy.

    ~joshua

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    The recent decisions by Obama to ignore his own Administrations legal standings and do an end run around Congress will definitely cause his poll numbers to take a major hit amongst Independents and NPAs..

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Hey CW- Just want to say a quick "good call" on the Obama recess appointments.

    So, you think it's a good idea for Obama to ignore his OWN administration's stance on the issue of Congressional recess and just do whatever the hell he wants??

    I have to wonder if you would say the same thing if President Bush had done it. Or when President Romney does it...

    Naw, I really don't have to wonder.. :D I know EXACTLY what you would say.. :D

    Checks and Balances are built into the system for a reason. When one branch of our government makes it a habit of circumventing the Checks and Balances of our system to pursue a purely political agenda....???

    Well that's a road that this country should never travel down. Because we simply won't like where it will lead...

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's actually ironic...

    By making this illegal appointment of Cordray to lead the Consumer Protection Bureau, Obama has effectively gutted the organization and rendered it completely powerless...

    In effect, Obama has done what the Republicans in Congress could not do..

    Eliminate the Consumer Protection Bureau.

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lest ya'all forget....

    It was Democrats who perfected the "Pro Forma" Senate sessions to thwart President Bush from making Recess Appointments...

    "Recess appointments have no credibility."
    -Senator Barack Obama, 2005

    The blatant hypocrisy is nauseating....

    It's nothing but partisan politics.

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as i wrote above, i would have preferred that the president hew more closely to the constitution and declare congress adjourned (article 2, section 3, clause 2) prior to making his recess appointments. however, i think the numbers matter. congress under bush held pro-forma sessions in response to excessive recess appointments, which i think ended up at 171 for bush, 139 for clinton. those sessions of congress were delaying only a few of his more controversial appointments, confirming the vast majority.

    under obama, only 29 recess appointments have been made, despite twice as many of his nominees as bush being severely delayed, and for no reason relating to the nominees themselves in any way. relatively speaking, these recess appointments are a drop in the bucket, only in response to congressional intransigence on a huge scale. it's one thing to filibuster five or ten controversial nominees, far different to stop the president from appointing anybody.

    better to have a few appointments with limited credibility than hundreds of important vacant jobs with no means to fill them.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    You can't violate the Constitution or your own administration's precedence, just because the other guy did it more..

    Obama officials have clearly stated that Congress must be out of session for 3 days before it can be a "recess"...

    Further, Title X Section 1066 of the Dodd-Frank legislation clearly states that the Director of the CFPB must be "confirmed by the Senate" before said Director can assume duties OF the Director...

    So, even assuming that you believe it's OK that the President can write AND implement his own laws on a whim (I don't, but hay...) the simple fact is the Dodd-Frank bill states that the Director MUST be confirmed by the Senate...

    That's the law...

    Now, of course, Obama can ignore the law. He has a track record of doing so, plus many statements of his claims he can..

    But, there again.. That will take us down a road that is very dangerous..

    Can you imagine the outcry from the Left if a GOP president would do this??

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that Senator Obama agrees with me...

    Whatever happened to that guy..

    Now THERE was a leader I could vote for...

    Michale.....

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    Which is not to say I don't agree with part of what you said...

    It WOULD have been an easier fight to adjourn Congress and THEN make the appointments.

    But, this is all for partisan political gain.. So, Obama had to pick the bigger fight..

    Too bad, the laws (ALL of them) are not on Obama's side...

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to say, it's pretty amazing..

    No matter WHAT rules Obama and the Democrats bend, no matter WHAT laws Obama and the Democrats break.....

    No matter what, Obama and the Democrats are ALWAYS right and the Republicans are ALWAYS wrong..

    (sarcasm)

    That's a pretty impressive track record...

    (/sarcasm)

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    C'mon Chris, what's the problem? The question revolves around what constitutes an actual recess.

    Most people seem to think that by clever wording, you can get around telling the truth in court. You can't. Judges are not sympathetic to "lawyering" ... at least by non lawyers.

    I think this is a good idea. The Senate IS in recess. Everyone knows this, no one denies it, this is a legal fiction.

    I agree that this should go in front of the Supreme's as soon as possible ... Like by next Wednesday. If the court says its wrong, no problem. Courdray goes back to being the putative nominee and the process starts over with no change.

    No Blood, no foul.

  13. [13] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    As to the question of will it hurt Obama's standing in the Polls?

    I doubt it. His base will love it, win lose or draw. The anti-base will just as equally hate it win lose or draw.

    Undecideds will more than likely scratch their heads, shrug their shoulders and go on living. Remembering that Obama's approval rating is 4 times that of Congress, those undecideds who DO change could easily change to Obama.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    DF,

    That's all well and good. Except the Obama Administration itself had said that, as long as Congress is in session every three days, it is not in recess..

    This is the precedent that Obama has agreed to more than once..

    NOW that it's not convenient for Obama, NOW things change...

    Independents and NPAs want a president that will keep his word, that will abide by his OWN established principles and precedents.

    Obama just does whatever the hell he wants with absolutely NO thought to the legality of it...

    Independents and NPAs don't like that...

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's all academic..

    The Dodd-Frank law clearly states that the Director cannot assume his duties until he is confirmed by the Senate..

    Of course, since Obama doesn't care about the law, this might not be such a stumbling block for him...

    I can't wait til we have a GOP president who does these exact same things..

    It's gonna be a pleasure to watch ya'all scream "FOUL!!!" to the high heavens.. :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Michale,

    If Republicans don't want a Consumer Protection Bureau, they should legislate against it.

    Not block appointments using bureaucratic tricks. They've even admitted they have no objections to Cordray. Pure obstructionism.

    I think it's worth the fight. You may disagree, but we already knew that.

    So please don't try to tell us that somehow you'd vote for Obama if somehow he were the "old Obama". I find that hard to believe given your 3+ years of anti-Obama comments.

    -David

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not block appointments using bureaucratic tricks. They've even admitted they have no objections to Cordray. Pure obstructionism.

    Just like the Democrats did under Bush..

    Pure obstructionism...

    So please don't try to tell us that somehow you'd vote for Obama if somehow he were the "old Obama". I find that hard to believe given your 3+ years of anti-Obama comments.

    This isn't about me.. It's about how Obama can totally shred the Constitution and flaunt the laws and ya'all cheerlead him on...

    I guess what ya'all are saying is that, "If a Democrat does it, it's not illegal.."

    How far does this blind ideological support extend??

    Is there ANYTHING that Obama could do that would cause ya'all to draw a line and say, "This far! No farther!!" ???

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Just like the Democrats did under Bush.

    No. It's not. Democrats never blocked an entire agency which was previously approved by Congress using bureaucratic tricks.

    -David

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Recess appointments have no credibility."
    -Senator Barack Obama, 2005

    "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure."
    -Senator Barack Obama, 2006

    Ya'all would crucify any GOP'er caught in such blatant hypocrisy...

    I'm just sayin'.......

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    No. It's not. Democrats never blocked an entire agency which was previously approved by Congress using bureaucratic tricks.

    By the light of a full moon, but only on Tuesdays...

    You can make any claim if you get specific enough...

    Democrats used the Pro Forma to prevent Bush from making recess appointments.

    Period...

    The why doesn't matter..

    Unless you want to go on record as saying, "The Ends Justify The Means" whereas the "Ends" in this case is simply a political ideological agenda..

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    All I am saying is that it's wrong for Obama to break his own precedent for partisan political reasons...

    The only difference here is that, if it were a GOP president, ya'all would be agreeing with me..

    Michale.....

  22. [22] 
    dsws wrote:

    "Recess appointments have no credibility."
    -Senator Barack Obama, 2005

    Got context for that alleged quote? Can you tell us what the sentence before and the sentence after were, and where he was speaking, and to whom?

    Didn't think so.

    --

    It's a very muddy issue. The legal details are not going to matter to a significant number of voters. The politics may.

    The Senate is being obstructionist. Well, that's what it does; that's what it's for. But it's gone from obstructionism as collegial privilege to obstructionism as utter dysfunction. Now the House is lying, claiming it's in session when it isn't, to uphold Senate inaction against a recess appointment. But they started it. I know you are but what am I. Iz snot, iz stew. ...

    In the peanut gallery, eyes glaze over.

    The ordinary voter will see it (if they see it at all) as the president trying to get something done, and Washington DC gridlock getting in the way. If we wind up with Newt as Republican nominee, it will be a tiny fraction of a percentage point against him, because of his association with Congress. If we wind up with the inevitable Willard Mitt Romney as the nominee, it will be an even tinier fraction of a percentage point in his favor, because of his lack of association with Congress or even Washington DC.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    Got context for that alleged quote? Can you tell us what the sentence before and the sentence after were, and where he was speaking, and to whom?

    Can you tell me how the context would any difference??

    Didn't think so...

    The Senate is being obstructionist.

    It's a DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED SENATE!!!

    Why is it that, when it's a GOP Controlled Senate, everything is the GOP's fault?? When it's a DEMOCRAT Controlled Senate, everything is STILL the GOP's fault...

    Why not just come out and say it...

    Everything in the world is the GOP's fault and Democrats are completely blameless...

    Jeeezus H Christ!!!

    The ordinary voter will see it (if they see it at all) as the president trying to get something done,

    No.. That's how his base will see it...

    Independents and NPAs will see it for what it is...

    Presidential Chicago style thuggery...

    Once again, I am constrained to point out that, around here, it seems Democrats can do no wrong..

    Is that little "-D" after a persons name that important to ya'all!!???

    The simple fact is, Obama is doing an end run around Congress.. It's like promising not to use Signing Statements.. And he does...

    And ya'all give him a pass because he is a Democrat...

    It's really that simple...

    Michale.....

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Senate is being obstructionist.

    http://tinyurl.com/7u52dt2

    Michale.....

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    The ordinary voter will see it (if they see it at all) as the president trying to get something done,

    By a margin of 53 to 37 percent, independents told the conservative-leaning research group that Obama is more interested in “campaigning against Republicans in Congress to win reelection” than “working with Republicans to get things done.”
    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/192407-poll-independents-unhappy-with-obama-campaigning-against-congress

    Granted, this is a poll that says something ya'all don't like, so I know you won't put any stock into it...

    But the simple fact is, anytime Obama pleases his base, as he has with the latest power grab, he turns off Independents and NPAs...

    "Dems da facts, Jack!!!"
    -Bill Murray, STRIPES

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    If Republicans don't want a Consumer Protection Bureau, they should legislate against it.

    The legislation states (not just once, but TWICE) that the Director of the new agency MUST be confirmed by the Senate.. Why bother stating so specifically that the Director must be confirmed by the Senate??

    So, if you want to complain about which Party is circumventing the legislation, then lets discuss that...

    Michale....

  27. [27] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    akadjian and dsws,

    I've been on 538, and the trolls there keep grousing about "the far-left NYT".

    For the life of me, I can't find a far-left newspaper of any size in the US.

    I mean, there's the Industrial Worker, Daily Worker, Mother Jones and The Nation (I wonder about the The Nation, but ...). But none of these has a circulation to warrant being called "large".

    Do you guys know of any?

  28. [28] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The legislation states (not just once, but TWICE) that the Director of the new agency MUST be confirmed by the Senate.

    Then the Senate should confirm someone. Especially someone who they admitted they have no issue with.

    If they won't, they've abdicated responsibility.

    This is a fight worth having because it shows 2 things: 1) how the GOP House is completely dysfunctional, and 2) whose side the GOP is on (hint: it sure as hell ain't consumers).

    -David

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    DF,

    For the life of me, I can't find a far-left newspaper of any size in the US.

    There's a reason for that...

    http://tinyurl.com/85qsefo

    David,

    Then the Senate should confirm someone. Especially someone who they admitted they have no issue with.

    And since they won't, the President ignores the laws and precedents and just does what he wants..

    So, you are saying that you ARE on board with "The Ends Justifies The Means" process...

    Good for you.. :D I'm proud of you.. :D

    This is a fight worth having because it shows 2 things: 1) how the GOP House is completely dysfunctional, and 2) whose side the GOP is on (hint: it sure as hell ain't consumers).

    And you think Obama is???

    Who signed legislation that allowed bill collectors to harass the middle class via cell phone??

    Who signed legislation that legalized online gambling that, disproportionally negatively effects the lower and middle class???

    Do you REALLY think Obama is looking out for the middle class???

    Obama is looking out for Obama... Period...

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Do you guys know of any?

    Hahahahah, DF. Any media which conservatives don't agree with is "far left". Didn't you read the conservative definition?

    I think you'd be correct in saying that there's not a liberal publication of any size I know of in the U.S. I like to point out how almost all of our media is owned by a select group of multinational companies - Disney, Comcast, ClearChannel, NewsCorp, Gannett, etc.

    Translation: The media by and large is "corporate media".

    I'd caution you though. The argument right vs. left is a conservative frame when it comes to the media. It goes something like this. The media used to have journalistic standards. If an argument couldn't be substantiated, media outlets wouldn't print it. Conservatives felt that these standards were unfair and that only "liberal" arguments were being published. So they invented this idea of the "liberal media". Basically, they changed the definition of journalism from "credible as substantiated by evidence" to "contains both Right and Left" arguments.

    In a conservative world, the media does not investigate. They merely repeat what both sides say. This is why conservatives arguing against climate change have gained such traction - the media, by and large, doesn't focus on the science, they merely report what each side says.

    This is what I miss about our media.

    Don't fall into the trap of arguing along the lines of a conservative frame! :)

    -David

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think you'd be correct in saying that there's not a liberal publication of any size I know of in the U.S

    It ain't thru lack of trying.. :D

    I can rattle off a dozen attempts at Liberal media that fell flat on their asses..

    Why??

    Because Americans don't like to listen to a bunch of snobby snot-nosed elitists tell them how bad their country is...

    The US is a Center-Right country...

    That's the way it is..

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why conservatives arguing against climate change have gained such traction - the media, by and large, doesn't focus on the science, they merely report what each side says.

    You CAN'T focus on the science..

    Because there is equal science that supports the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory AND disputes it..

    The problem is the Left only wants to listen to the scientists that support the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory and they viciously attack the scientists that dispute the theory..

    So, an argument based on the science is as moot as the argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin..

    It's like seeing religious fanatics fight over whose priests are all goodness and light and whose priests are pure evil...

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Just checking, David. I wasn't sure if I had missed one in the Northwest.

    and you're right. Fair no longer has come to mean a recounting of the verifiable facts, its come to mean giving equal weight to both sides of the argument.

    That's why there's a "controversy" over evolution. I found out about that from my 15 yo nephew in Kansas, last night. Did you know, for example, that "many" Nobel Prize winners don't believe in evolution? It's true. Just ask.

    Actually, I've found 2: Dr. Robert A. Millikan (born 1898, NP physics:'23 measured the charge of an electron) and Dr. George Wald (born 1906, NP physiology:'67, chemical visual process in the eye)

    I guess in some alternative Universe 2 would be considered "many".

    Do you know of any others? I can't find them.

  34. [34] 
    akadjian wrote:

    So, you are saying that you ARE on board with "The Ends Justifies The Means" process.

    I believe you're the only one who said that.

    Michale, I think it's pretty safe to say it's been established that you hate Obama. You hate him when he's following the rules. You hate him when he's not. You hate him when he tries to work with the GOP. You hate him when he doesn't.

    As a leader, I always take the position that I will try and work with people until they demonstrate that they are completely unwilling to compromise. At this point, you have to lead.

    You keep shouting that Democrats and Republicans are the same. They're not. Democrats have always been willing to work with Republicans. Sure, there are points where they disagree, but by and large, Democrats work with Republicans. Hell, most of the time I think they give in way too easy to Republicans. Republicans, just the opposite. Their definition of working together is we get 100% of what we want, you get nothing. This was what we saw in the debt ceiling debate. Remember that one?

    Now as a leader, when someone I work with is completely unwilling to compromise, sometimes you have to lead. And go on without them.

    This seems to be a perfect example of this situation - Republicans flat out blocking a law which they passed because ... well, they just don't like it. Or rather, they're corporate donors don't.

    Have you even seen an explanation of why they're blocking the CPB appointment? I don't think there's been a stated reason.

    -David

  35. [35] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Because there is equal science that supports the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory AND disputes it.

    No. There's equal media coverage of both sides.

    The scientific consensus, as written by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is that “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    Scientists, by and large, agree with the theory.

    Cue the list of "Google" articles ... :)

    -David

  36. [36] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Hoo boy.

    Well, I started commenting on this thread, but by the time my comment had reached 1,000 words, and I still hadn't wrapped it up, I realized that it would make a fine blog post, so you'll all have to wait.

    Sorry about that. Tune in later today to see my take on all of this.

    -CW

  37. [37] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    David,

    There is plenty of evidence for global warning, but I've got one of my own.

    I bought a farm in SW Tennessee about 12 years ago. There were no armadillos to be seen. Now they are the national hood ornament of Tennessee.

  38. [38] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Chris,

    Glad we could help.

  39. [39] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I realized that it would make a fine blog post, so you'll all have to wait.

    Heheh. It is a fine mess we've made indeed. Looking forward to it!

    I bought a farm in SW Tennessee about 12 years ago. There were no armadillos to be seen. Now they are the national hood ornament of Tennessee.

    Similarly, poison ivy has become our state plant here in Ohio. It apparently thrives on the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. You used to almost never see it. Now, it's everywhere and unstoppable.

    When I was a kid, we used to have about a month every year when our neighborhood pond would freeze over and you could skate on it. We haven't even had a safe day since I believe about 1990.

    -David

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/garden/17garden.html?pagewanted=all

  40. [40] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Now what I don't understand, Michale, is how come you never argue against evolution?

    I guess this is part of your independent streak (which I freely admit is part of why we like you).

    BTW- In the interest of self disclosure, I never understand what many conservatives have against evolution. There is nothing about the theory that precludes a God. It would only argue against a strict literal interpretation of the Bible which I suppose offends some people.

    -David

  41. [41] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    "Recess appointments have no credibility."
    -Senator Barack Obama, 2005

    I can't find this at all on the internet beyond very recent blog comments. I would like to see the real reference. Is it misquoted or a fabrication?

  42. [42] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Because there is equal science that supports the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory AND disputes it..

    I am still waiting for a link to this "science" beyond some obscure school no one has heard of. Got anything peer reviewed and from a research institution that has access to satellites and super computers?

    Since according to you it's "equal" that should be easy, right?

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    I believe you're the only one who said that.

    And your actions in acceptance of Obama breaking the law and the rules indicates that you agree with it.

    If you don't, then how do you explain your acceptance of Obama's actions??

    Actions, I might add, you would very resoundingly condemn, if it was a GOP President doing the exact same thing...

    Michale, I think it's pretty safe to say it's been established that you hate Obama. You hate him when he's following the rules. You hate him when he's not. You hate him when he tries to work with the GOP. You hate him when he doesn't.

    First of all, I don't "hate" Obama..

    I am pissed that he con'ed me, but that is more on me than on him..

    I look at his actions and then judge accordingly.

    I grudgingly give him the credit for his Counter Terrorism successes...

    No, I don't "hate" Obama..

    . Democrats have always been willing to work with Republicans.

    That's a load of horse puckey and you know it..

    Democrats are only willing to work with Republicans, as long as it is on Democrats terms..

    Sure, there are points where they disagree, but by and large, Democrats work with Republicans.

    So, basically, what you are saying is what I pointed out above...

    That Democrats are always in the right and Republicans are always in the wrong..

    Strange how that always works out that way, eh?? :D

    That is the very problem right there.. You are so enamored by Party dogma, you are convinced that Democrats are justified in everything they do...

    CrapCare was a perfect example.. You and I were of the EXACT same opinion regarding Crap Care. Hell, you NAMED it CrapCare...

    But once the Democrats succeeded in passing it, all of the sudden you (and everyone else here... Don't think I am just picking on you) were behind it 1000% and it was gospel...

    That's the attitude that really bugs me..

    You know what Obama is doing is wrong.. Yet, because he is a Democrat, you simply won't condemn him for it..

    Obama is wrong here. You know it.. I know it..

    Scientists, by and large, agree with the theory.

    Bull crap.. Complete and utter bull crap...

    But I suspect that you KNOW it's bull crap..

    The science is in dispute. PERIOD...

    Now what I don't understand, Michale, is how come you never argue against evolution?

    Are you SERIOUSLY trying to say that there is as much evidence to support the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory as there is to support the theory of Evolution???

    SERIOUSLY!!?????

    If that's what you truly believe, then there is simply and absolutely NO WAY that we could ever discuss the issue logically and rationally..

    For us to do that, we would have to be on the same planet..

    And if you believe that the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory has as much supporting evidence as the Evolution theory, then we are obviously not even in the same galaxy...

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    When I was a kid, we used to have about a month every year when our neighborhood pond would freeze over and you could skate on it. We haven't even had a safe day since I believe about 1990.

    That's strange...

    According to Phil Jones (a Global Warming advocate) there hasn't been any statistically signification warming since the mid-90s...

    And yet, you claim that humans are the cause of Climate Change???

    Amazing...

    Simply amazing...

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cue the list of "Google" articles ... :)

    Why bother?

    Despite all the factual evidence to the contrary, religious fanatics still believe there is a god...

    So it is with Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) fanatics..

    Their "priests" (scientists) are right and the heathen "priests" are wrong and should be crucified for heresy......

    Fanatics are always a pain in the arse... :D

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am still waiting for a link to this "science" beyond some obscure school no one has heard of. Got anything peer reviewed and from a research institution that has access to satellites and super computers?

    You remind me of the old Stalinist Apparatchiks, Bashi.. :D

    When trying to suppress people's freedoms in the old Soviet Union, they would incarcerate people in asylums for the insane...

    The reasoning being that anyone who would want to leave the glorious Soviet Union *MUST* be crazy...

    In other words, it was policy based evidence making..

    So it is with you..

    You want to hear from "real" scientists who dispute the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory...

    Yet, in your mind, no "real" scientist could POSSIBLY dispute the theory..

    Ergo, any "scientist" who disputes the theory of Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) simply can not be a "REAL" scientist..

    A self-fulfilling delusion....

    Also known as policy based evidence making...

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The science is in dispute. PERIOD...

    Actually it's not. There is global warming and at least some of it is caused by human activity. All major science institutions agree on this. The disagreement is about how fast it's warming and how much is human caused.

    As too the difference in evidence between Evolution and global warming. Depends on how you define evidence, but still Evolution comes out on top purely due to to greater amount of time spend researching it. Both climate modeling and genome sequencing are extremely data and computer processing intensive. Kind of like comparing a multimillionaire to a billionaire. The billionaire has more money but they are both rich...

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually it's not.

    Actually, it is...

    You only claim it's not, because you discount ANY scientist that shows evidence to dispute the theory..

    The theory IS in dispute.. No amount of religious type fanaticism will change that..

    Michale..

  49. [49] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    You want to hear from "real" scientists who dispute the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory...

    Yes, that is why I am still waiting for links. Real scientists with the funding to have access to or the ability to build and deploy the tools needed to do the research.

    Of course if you have nothing I guess you could resort to crack pot theories and attacks involving religion and the Soviet Union...

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, that is why I am still waiting for links. Real scientists with the funding to have access to or the ability to build and deploy the tools needed to do the research.

    I'm not allowed to post links... :D

    Everyone else's links appear to be gospel..

    Mine are not..

    Regardless, it's not as if any links from real scientists will change your mind, right??

    So, the question is... Why should I bother??

    Michale...

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    attacks involving religion and the Soviet Union...

    It's a sad sad day indeed, when no one is allowed to attack the Soviet Union... :D

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's talk Track Records, shall we??

    NUMBER OF GLOBAL WARMING PREDICTIONS IN THE LAST 20 YEARS THAT HAVE BEEN WRONG
    I could list hundreds....

    NUMBER OF GLOBAL WARMING PREDICTIONS IN THE LAST 20 YEARS THAT HAVE BEEN RIGHT
    ..................
    .....................
    ........................

    NONE ...... ZERO ..... ZILCH ..... NADA .......

    It's all academic anyways...

    This discussion is like masturbation.. It makes one feel good for a few, but then it's nothing but a big mess..

    I am not going to convince ya'all that the science is in dispute..

    Ya'all are not going to convince me that humans have caused Climate Change and/or that we can actually do something about the planet's climate in the here and now....

    So, it's been real and it's been fun, but let's move on... :D

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    In closing, allow me to share with everyone the immortal words of Socrates.......

    "I drank what????"

    :D

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    How did we get here from "Obama's poll numbers are up"? I miss Chris1962, who at least could haggle over which type of polling was more valid and which wasn't...

    Sheesh...

    -CW

  55. [55] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Wow. Let's see ...

    You managed to cover masturbation ...

    Stalinist Apparatchiks ... (my personal favorite)

    Religious fanaticism for listening to scientists ...

    Quite impressive. What I fail to see is any analysis of the scientific community like the following:

    A 2010 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analysed 1,372 climate researchers and their publication data to show that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    97-98%. That's pretty compelling. Especially when there are always going to be industry paid "scientists" who will would say otherwise.

    Another study analysed 928 papers on climate research published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. The study found that none of the papers disagreed with the consensus opinion of the IPCC.

    Here's the IPCC consensus opinion: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    So let me get this straight. You're accusing us of religious fanaticism for listening to 97-98% of the world's climate scientists?

    Now who's sticking their head in the sand my apparatchik? :)

    -David

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Once you say "IPCC" and "UN", you have lost all credibility...

    That's all I am going to say on the subject... :D

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    How did we get here from "Obama's poll numbers are up"?

    Mea culpa.. I went off on a tangent...

    Thought I was still trying to rack up a post count.. :D

    Lame excuse, I know.. Won't happen again...

    I miss Chris1962, who at least could haggle over which type of polling was more valid and which wasn't...

    I miss her too.... She was a real sweetheart.... :D

    But, for the record....

    All polling sucks!! :D

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    BashiBazouk [41] -

    I checked Lexis Nexis, and all I could find was Obama in 2005 denouncing the specific recess appointment of John Bolton: "Its the wrong thing to do. John Bolton is the wrong person for the job. The president is entitled to take that action, but I dont think it will serve American foreign policy well"

    Not exactly the sweeping denunciation of recess appointments it is now being quoted as, eh? Note that last sentence, there.

    Oh, and the source was the AP, July 31, 2005, but I can't post a link (Lexis Nexis is a pay service).

    -CW

  59. [59] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Interesting, a blatant fib from the right getting viral traction. I wonder how far it will go?

  60. [60] 
    dsws wrote:

    So, you are saying that you ARE on board with "The Ends Justifies The Means" process.So, you are saying that you ARE on board with "The Ends Justifies The Means" process.

    Some ends do justify some means: some means have drawbacks that aren't really that important, and can be justified very easily. On the other hand, some means can't be justified by any plausible ends.

    Oh, and the source was the AP, July 31, 2005, but I can't post a link (Lexis Nexis is a pay service).

    Interesting. I was finding mention of an unlinked article from August 2, 2005 in the State Journal Register (Springfield IL).

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]