Obama-shine is def over

Mitt lost the election by being Mitt. greedy, self serving and a little to talibanesque for most people. Conservative and radical theocrat go hand in hand

I was thankful I didn't live in OH. I have a friend in Columbus who cancelled his cable and watched nothing but movies. He said it was horrendous.

Unfortunately, you're right: it's clear that negative advertising elects candidates.

Whether they do so by depressing turnout or, as the political scientists I quoted say, causing voters to seek more information, they don't seem to raise a candidate's approval ratings.

Actually, voters decide based on a number of interrelated factors, and advertising is only one of these. I try to inoculate myself against ads, considering them untrustworthy sources of useful information.

*******ww w.this nation****/question/031.html

Studies, like political polling, depends on who you ask. For me to answer the question of whether or not negative advertising works is answered by the proliferation of negative ads we see on TV each election cycle. I don’t see how a survey can argue with what we see on TV each election cycle.

Some experts believe that negative ads hinder voter turnout, which explains why Obama won in 2012. Even though he received 10 million FEWER votes in 12 than he did in 08, Romney received 3 million FEWER votes the McCain did in 08, which was 7 million fewer than Bush received in 04.

As for the politico results, the numbers I saw not only in 2012 but in 2008 are not quite the same as those, particularly in 2008 when Obama out spent McCain and ran 7 negative ads for each negative ad ran by the McCain Campaign team. Perhaps it’s because your link included “*includes coordinated party ads.”

Here are those two links again.

htt p://ww w.politico.co m/news/stories/1112/83262.html

htt p://news.discovery.co m/human/negative-ads-romney-obama-120516.htm

“A full 86 percent of Obama’s television advertising and 79 percent of Romney’s has been negative, according to the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks political advertising.”

“htt p://****politico.co m/news/stories/1112/83262.html

“Negative ads don't affect voter turnout and they don't change minds of voters who are already decided. Negative ads do inspire people to seek out more information about the issues.”

*******news.discovery.co m/human/negative-ads-romney-obama-120516.htm

I wonder if the negative ads on both sides caused people to seek more information about the issues, and the new information increased Obama’s approval rating.

If you track the Presidents numbers, with the exception of a few months during the election, a majority of Americans have held a negative opinion of the President. Is it coinencedence that during a time when his approval rating rose, he aired negative ads about Mitt Romney to the tune of 9 for each one that spoke positively about the President?

In today's world, public opinion can change very quickly, can't it?

My bad. Seems a lot can change in 105 days.

The poll was recent when I posted that link, which, you may note, was 105 days ago.

“Obama-shine doesn’t seem to be over. Rasmussen puts Obama’s approval rating lower at 54%, but still up from last year. “

When was the poll you referenced taken Harry. I went to Rasmussen site you listed and it headlined for May 16, 2013 that “The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 49% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama's job performance. Fifty percent (50%) now disapprove.”

Perhaps this is your problem. In the blog from the ABC poll it states “President Obama’s approval ratings, at the launching of his second term, are his highest in more than three years, with 60 percent of Americans having a favorable impression of the 44th president.” Perhaps that’s because according to the tagline from your blog reference, “The poll was taken Jan. 23-27, surveyed 1,022 adult Americans, and has a margin of error of plus/minus 3.1 percent.”

More recent information seems to confirm that Americans do indeed think less of the President

“I'm glad the new whackjob 501's got a better looking at.”

You link to a story from 2004 that quotes 1 liberal church claiming to be targeted for review of tax exempt status for participating in political activities such as endorsing candidates or making campaign donations but you failed to mention simple facts. For instance, the investigation by the Bush Administration targeted churches without consideration to their political leanings. That was the findings of a Treasury investigation in response to the allegations made by All Saints Church, which is the one referenced in your article. Ht tp://****washington post****/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802501_2.html How that correlates to the clearly illegal activities of the IRS today is baffling to me. Perhaps you can expand on your thoughts.

Bush's fault, Bush's fault, Bush's fault,Bush's fault, Bush's fault, Bush's fault,Bush's fault, Bush's fault, Bush's fault,Bush's fault, Bush's fault, Bush's fault. Does that help, Burning? Churches and Ministers that preach are covered, those hat politicize lose their exemption.An IRS "fact sheet" provided by the agency noted: "Even activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria violate the political campaign prohibition."

*******www .washingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/articles/A10600-2004Oct29.html

cry me a river.

I'm glad the new whackjob 501's got a better looking at.

2013 = 1984

Internal Revenue Service = Internal Revenge Service

h ttp://w ww.politico.c om/story/2013/04/obamas-hubris-problem-90650.html?hp=l13

It just gets worse and worse. Obama and Holder and all his administration are scary and devastating to America. I believe Peggy Noonan used a good word...."creepy".

Our security and our economy are not in good hands.

You can only polish a turd so much!!!!!

Go Obama!!!

Now if we get rid of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights in this lame duck term maybe we will get something done!

Go Obama !!!Now if we get rid of these obstructing republicans at the mid-terms maybe we will get something done !

Obama-shine doesn’t seem to be over. An ABC News/Washington Post poll puts his approval rating at 60%. Furthermore, two groups who voted against him, independents and those over 65, now lean in his direction.

blog.seattlepi.co m/seattlepolitics/2013/01/31/obama-approval-up-to-60-percent-national-poll/

Rasmussen puts Obama’s approval rating lower at 54%, but still up from last year.

ww w.rasmussenreports.co m/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Rasmussen also reports, “Just 32% of voters now believe their local congressional representative deserves to be reelected.”

Seems the shine is off Congress more than Obama.