Question: Last year, Obama's SOTU speech was to 33 million folks. This year, to 31 million. Both numbers down from his 2009 audience of 52 million.
What's the difference? Almost nothing, which means folks have not been listening to this man, for a couple of years or more.
Understand that 58 percent of the population voted in the 2012 elections, or 128 million folks. In other words, he was not able to attract the attention of all his Democrat friends, much less three fourths of the nation's population.
Running the numbers makes this story, even worse for the "most popular man in America." The total population of the US is around 303 million counting family members. Conclusion? 90% of the nation was doing something else on the night of the Speech.
They were going out to eat, playing soccer, dropping pills, getting abortions, cleaning their guns, replanting their pot farms and shopping . . . . anything but listen to his blow.
Rasmussen Reports 1/19 - 1/21 1500 LV 50 48 +2
ReplyDeleteLooks like most of the nation was also 'doing something else' when the GOP was voted in last yr.
But you laugh at Rasmussen when I use it. And your comment on the turn out for the last election? . . . . . anyone can come up with excuses, and that is what your side has done with both butt-kicking elections (2010 and 2014) . . . make up excuses for losing. Besides, if the turn out was low for the GOP, as well, the only reason your side lost was because you all could not get your side to come out and vote. Whose fault is that?
Deletereality check
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/opinion/paul-krugman-hating-good-government.html?_r=0
The reader should know that Krugman supports the lawlessness of the Obama Administration at every turn, and for this reason: "It all for the greater good." Krugman is a man who believes we cannot run out of money, as a nation, and believes that all government spending is "stimulus," including wasteful spending . . . . . but a man who condemned GW Bush for being a big spender. Go figure.
Delete120 million folks will watch the Super Bowl, this year. Obama spoke to 30 million and almost all were Democrats, don't you know?
ReplyDeleteno hope
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/politics/clinton-beats-republicans-wapo-abc-poll/index.html
Anyone believe that Clinton would actually beat Romney by 15 points in a real election? Or that she would beat Bush by 13%. Good grief. Polls prove absolutely nothing. They are used to win over donors. I mean, at the time of the 2008 elections, Obama had a 67% approval rating but only got 53% of the vote. Case closed.
Deletehahahahaha.....
Deletehttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_bush_first_term_job_approval.html
My info cfdame from here: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/barack-obama-annual-approval-ratings/2015/01/20/id/619663/. Because you do not want to accept Gallup is not my problem. Still, Obama is grossly less popular that Bush. Here is the only polling comparison that really counts:
DeleteIn Obama's second election,he lost a total of 4.5 million votes compared to 2008. In Bush's re-election bid, he took in 12 million MORE votes that in 2000.
And nothing can compare to what Obama is doing to his own party. Why aren't you angry? You should. The man has taken the Democrat Party back to 1920 in terms of political power. Fine with me,
And now, he has taken in Al Sharpton and interviewed with Glozell Green, instead of the legit press core. He has made a joke out of the presidency and is an embarrassment to us all. Sharpton is a self-serving pig, and Glozell is woman doing idiotic things to make a buck (good for her). But even she said, "the interview request [ he called her ] made 'no sense.' "
"Because you do not want to accept Gallup is not my problem"
ReplyDeleteGallup 1/23 - 1/25 1500 A 50 45 +5
GALLUP +5
And because you cannot accept the decimation of your party, is not mine.
Delete