“They don’t say how many people they interviewed, which is a major flaw”
That’d be a reasonable point, if it wasn’t for it being clearly labelled as “Survey of 274 Republican primary voters” at the bottom of every page in the link you provide to it.
Ignore the real cause of the disaster. The infrastructure had all kinds of problems and had not been updated for decades. Levies failed and large pumping facilities failed because of a lack of maintenance and upgrades. There was a local government committee who was supposed to regularly review the infrastructure to insure they were prepared, instead they met for lunch once a month at fancy eateries. If the government has simply done their jobs the toll would have been a lot lower. Blaming it on who ever was president at the time is pure politics.
Weak, weak nonsense. Slams the GOP and the citizens of Louisiana while proving he can’t read fine print or footnotes. No wonder he’s one of our top cartoonists…oh wait he’s not.
While the infrastructure “protecting” New Orleans had been properly maintained and updated to match changing conditions, flooding in the 9th ward may not have been so severe, that demonstrated decades of Republican admnistrations neglecting need to give tax breaks to corporations, rather than investing in America.
The survey was about the weeks after the Hurricane and response, asking whether essentially, people had a clue that Obama wasn’t president at the time, it was the Bush administration that screwed up.
Part of the reason for the poor govt response after the storm devastated the coastling and New Orleans lay in the fact that G.W. Bush appointed an inexperienced, political hack (Michael Brown) to head up the FEMA. Admittedly, the storm was enormous in scale and destructive power, but Brown quickly proved unequal to the task.In the ensuing years (still during George’s presidency) MILLIONS of govt dollars were gobbled up by “contractors” to provide housing for those displaced. Most never recieved that “Housing”, though thousands of modules were built!
“Obviously you can’t prove they didn’t, or you would have.”
Or, it’s so glaringly obviously not going to be the case that only the most desperate clutching of straws would demand proof to start off with. American politics is so polarised Obama currently has a 6% approval rating amongst Republicans and an 83% rating amongst Democrats. That’s nuts. Any notion that responses to poll questions such as this one would not be similarly polarised is laughable. Hence the laughing.
Tell you what though, if that wasn’t the case, it would be easy for you to show it. Just find a few polls showing Democrats and Republicans blaming Obama for something – anything – equally. Good luck with that!
So, briefly, no, copying and pasting an argument from someone else who evidently hasn’t read the poll won’t change the fact that neither myself nor the comic that you’re commenting on are claiming that the poll says anything other than what it says.
No, I didn’t misreport anything, especially not in the bizarre way you imagine I did. I took the figures from here – Presidential Approval Ratings — Barack Obama and as you can the most recent results they list there by party identification are from Dec 8-14th and they’re exactly what I said they were. None of that changes the point being made in the slightest, which, unlike your ‘correction’, was entirely relevant.
And as for this:
“You also failed to mention that 13% of the population gives Obama an 89% Approval rating, based on nothing but his race.”
Yes, yes I did fail to mention that. Because I’m not dumb enough or racist enough to think that you see.
“Funny, but it was apparent to me they hadread the poll.” – Coming from someone who started by showing they hadn’t read the poll either, that’s not remotely surprising.
“Errors of omission are in fact misreporting.” – The source was provided to show there was no omission from myself. If you have a problem with an omission at the source, you can always take that up with Gallup.
"…I think you’re calling me a racist for pointing out statistics. " – Not necessarily. I didn’t just say I wasn’t racist…
But please, if you want to make it clear that such implications don’t apply to you, outline the reasoning you use to conclude from the statistics that " that 13% of the population gives Obama an 89% Approval rating, based on nothing but his race." I’m sure it won’t turn out to be in any way racist or dumb. Mmm.
why do you suppose they approve of his job performance at such a high level if not for the pigment of his skin?
Keep in mind that Clinton had similarly high approval ratings from African Americans. Did they like him because of the pigment of his skin? Maybe, just maybe they’re smarter than you give them credit for. Maybe they blame the Republicans in Congress for screwing the economy, and them along with it. Or do you subscribe to the simplistic notion that one man controls the entire national economy? This isn’t exactly Stalin’s Russia, you know.
Indeed, all the economic statistics you quote have been clearly and directly linked to the enormous financial collapse that occurred before Obama ever took the presidency. In addition, Republicans successfully blocked a larger stimulus package—that would benefit regular people and not just bankers—from being passed, arguably exacerbating the slowness of the economic recovery.
Which is not to absolve Obama from his practice of continuing the tradition of effectively using Goldman Sachs as his economic advisors. It’s just that Republicans have been even worse for regular people than have Obama-brand Democrats.
“If Obama has a 55% approval rating among the general population, but an 89% approval rating among Blacks, which make up a sizable 13% of the population … "
And so we can see the reasoning used is indeed dumb, and quite probably racist too.
Dumb, because the approval of other groups is not zero percent, which shows there are non-racial reasons to approve, and hence there is no basis whatsoever to assume that all approval from one group is entirely down to that group’s racial characteristics. It simply cannot be stated that “13% of the population gives Obama an 89% Approval rating, based on nothing but his race”. There are evidently multiple other grounds for approval. Particularly since, as agrestic already pointed out, Bill Clinton had similar approval ratings.
And probably racist because, as there is no logical basis to make such an assertion, the only basis to do so is an illogical and inherently racist one. An assumption that those with black skin colour cannot be approving of a President’s performance because of the same factors that might result in approval from others, but only because they share a skin colour. That’s pretty darn racist. I doubt you attribute all disapproval from the 73% white population to not sharing skin colour.
That is, to address your point c, “Pointing out statistics is not racist.” No, no it isn’t. Making illogical racist statements based on them is though.
“Do not put words in my mouth”? I think you’ll find that quoting someone is not “putting words in their mouth”.
If you don’t like me saying that you said, and I quote again, “13% of the population gives Obama an 89% Approval rating, based on nothing but his race”, then might I suggest not saying it in the first place?
lutherg1 over 9 years ago
I am full of admiration for people thinking in the abstract while stuck on a roof.
Arathrael over 9 years ago
“They don’t say how many people they interviewed, which is a major flaw”
That’d be a reasonable point, if it wasn’t for it being clearly labelled as “Survey of 274 Republican primary voters” at the bottom of every page in the link you provide to it.
Theodore E. Lind Premium Member over 9 years ago
Ignore the real cause of the disaster. The infrastructure had all kinds of problems and had not been updated for decades. Levies failed and large pumping facilities failed because of a lack of maintenance and upgrades. There was a local government committee who was supposed to regularly review the infrastructure to insure they were prepared, instead they met for lunch once a month at fancy eateries. If the government has simply done their jobs the toll would have been a lot lower. Blaming it on who ever was president at the time is pure politics.
streetbeater over 9 years ago
Ted, excellent point about crumbling infrastructure. But infrastructure cost money…. and money comes from taxes….
manteo16nc over 9 years ago
Weak, weak nonsense. Slams the GOP and the citizens of Louisiana while proving he can’t read fine print or footnotes. No wonder he’s one of our top cartoonists…oh wait he’s not.
Dtroutma over 9 years ago
While the infrastructure “protecting” New Orleans had been properly maintained and updated to match changing conditions, flooding in the 9th ward may not have been so severe, that demonstrated decades of Republican admnistrations neglecting need to give tax breaks to corporations, rather than investing in America.
The survey was about the weeks after the Hurricane and response, asking whether essentially, people had a clue that Obama wasn’t president at the time, it was the Bush administration that screwed up.
louieglutz over 9 years ago
obama didn’t pardon ray nagin did he?
moosemin over 9 years ago
Ever been down to in the deep south? You would be quite stunned by what many believe about the Civil War!
moosemin over 9 years ago
Part of the reason for the poor govt response after the storm devastated the coastling and New Orleans lay in the fact that G.W. Bush appointed an inexperienced, political hack (Michael Brown) to head up the FEMA. Admittedly, the storm was enormous in scale and destructive power, but Brown quickly proved unequal to the task.In the ensuing years (still during George’s presidency) MILLIONS of govt dollars were gobbled up by “contractors” to provide housing for those displaced. Most never recieved that “Housing”, though thousands of modules were built!
Arathrael over 9 years ago
“Now where’s the survey of Democratic primary voters?”
Probably with the survey of independent voters, in the box labelled “completely irrelevant to the comic you’re commenting on.”
Arathrael over 9 years ago
“If they say the same thing in relatively equal numbers” – Hahahaha! Good one!
Arathrael over 9 years ago
“Obviously you can’t prove they didn’t, or you would have.”
Or, it’s so glaringly obviously not going to be the case that only the most desperate clutching of straws would demand proof to start off with. American politics is so polarised Obama currently has a 6% approval rating amongst Republicans and an 83% rating amongst Democrats. That’s nuts. Any notion that responses to poll questions such as this one would not be similarly polarised is laughable. Hence the laughing.
Tell you what though, if that wasn’t the case, it would be easy for you to show it. Just find a few polls showing Democrats and Republicans blaming Obama for something – anything – equally. Good luck with that!
Dan1313131313 over 9 years ago
Hitting the first tee 10 minutes after announcing to America that a terror group had just decapitated one of our own is a Katrina Moment.
Announcing to the UN General Assembly that a video did it three weeks after everyone knew that a video didn’t do it is a Katrina Moment.
How many do you want? Just a smidgeon more?
Arathrael over 9 years ago
So, briefly, no, copying and pasting an argument from someone else who evidently hasn’t read the poll won’t change the fact that neither myself nor the comic that you’re commenting on are claiming that the poll says anything other than what it says.
No, I didn’t misreport anything, especially not in the bizarre way you imagine I did. I took the figures from here – Presidential Approval Ratings — Barack Obama and as you can the most recent results they list there by party identification are from Dec 8-14th and they’re exactly what I said they were. None of that changes the point being made in the slightest, which, unlike your ‘correction’, was entirely relevant.
And as for this:
“You also failed to mention that 13% of the population gives Obama an 89% Approval rating, based on nothing but his race.”
Yes, yes I did fail to mention that. Because I’m not dumb enough or racist enough to think that you see.
Arathrael over 9 years ago
“Funny, but it was apparent to me they hadread the poll.” – Coming from someone who started by showing they hadn’t read the poll either, that’s not remotely surprising.
“Errors of omission are in fact misreporting.” – The source was provided to show there was no omission from myself. If you have a problem with an omission at the source, you can always take that up with Gallup.
"…I think you’re calling me a racist for pointing out statistics. " – Not necessarily. I didn’t just say I wasn’t racist…
But please, if you want to make it clear that such implications don’t apply to you, outline the reasoning you use to conclude from the statistics that " that 13% of the population gives Obama an 89% Approval rating, based on nothing but his race." I’m sure it won’t turn out to be in any way racist or dumb. Mmm.
agrestic over 9 years ago
why do you suppose they approve of his job performance at such a high level if not for the pigment of his skin?
Keep in mind that Clinton had similarly high approval ratings from African Americans. Did they like him because of the pigment of his skin? Maybe, just maybe they’re smarter than you give them credit for. Maybe they blame the Republicans in Congress for screwing the economy, and them along with it. Or do you subscribe to the simplistic notion that one man controls the entire national economy? This isn’t exactly Stalin’s Russia, you know.
Indeed, all the economic statistics you quote have been clearly and directly linked to the enormous financial collapse that occurred before Obama ever took the presidency. In addition, Republicans successfully blocked a larger stimulus package—that would benefit regular people and not just bankers—from being passed, arguably exacerbating the slowness of the economic recovery.
Which is not to absolve Obama from his practice of continuing the tradition of effectively using Goldman Sachs as his economic advisors. It’s just that Republicans have been even worse for regular people than have Obama-brand Democrats.
Arathrael over 9 years ago
“If Obama has a 55% approval rating among the general population, but an 89% approval rating among Blacks, which make up a sizable 13% of the population … "
And so we can see the reasoning used is indeed dumb, and quite probably racist too.
Dumb, because the approval of other groups is not zero percent, which shows there are non-racial reasons to approve, and hence there is no basis whatsoever to assume that all approval from one group is entirely down to that group’s racial characteristics. It simply cannot be stated that “13% of the population gives Obama an 89% Approval rating, based on nothing but his race”. There are evidently multiple other grounds for approval. Particularly since, as agrestic already pointed out, Bill Clinton had similar approval ratings.
And probably racist because, as there is no logical basis to make such an assertion, the only basis to do so is an illogical and inherently racist one. An assumption that those with black skin colour cannot be approving of a President’s performance because of the same factors that might result in approval from others, but only because they share a skin colour. That’s pretty darn racist. I doubt you attribute all disapproval from the 73% white population to not sharing skin colour.
That is, to address your point c, “Pointing out statistics is not racist.” No, no it isn’t. Making illogical racist statements based on them is though.
Arathrael over 9 years ago
“Do not put words in my mouth”? I think you’ll find that quoting someone is not “putting words in their mouth”.
If you don’t like me saying that you said, and I quote again, “13% of the population gives Obama an 89% Approval rating, based on nothing but his race”, then might I suggest not saying it in the first place?