Obama No Better Than Bush

There's a tongue-twister for you. USAToday couldn't quite get it out. Here is how they open their piece:

Americans tend to rate Barack Obama a better president than predecessor George W. Bush, but not as good a president as Bill Clinton, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.

In fact, that is not what their poll showed. It showed this:

According to Gallup, 43% rate Obama a better president than Bush, while 34% rate him as a worse president; another 22% say the two presidents are "about the same."

That's fifty-six percent who think that Obama is no better or worse than Bush, exactly the opposite of the tendency USAToday announces.

Comments

[Bill Fleming]

...or, more people tend to rate Obama a better president than Bush than not. And twice as many rank Obama as better than Bush as do those who rank him as about the same. (Nice try, KB, you old sophist you.)

[Bill Fleming]

Even simpler: Only 34% of those polled think George W. Bush was a better president than Obama.

[Bill Fleming]

...and the spin-kicker, " ...a whopping 66% feel otherwise."

[duggersd]

Considering Obama's record and Bush's record, I suspect in a few years, most people will rate Bush as a better President than Obama. Considering Obama will only have one term, will have had unemployment increase under his watch, has made Bush look like a fiscal conservative, has weakened our prestige in the eyes of the world, and will have been voted out of office after four years in a landslide, yeah, people will rate Bush better.

[George Mason]

Bill; You need a course in statistics. KB can probably recommend someone in the math dept. for you.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: you can truthfully say that more people think that Obama was better than Bush than think Bush was better than Obama. That's not what USAToday said. What they did say is flatly false, according to their own poll. "The same as" is not "better than". Am I going too fast for you?

[Bill Fleming]

George, and Ken, you guys need to learn how to read. Period.

[Bill Fleming]

My point is, if you are going to practice sophistry the way KB is here, you have to frame both sides of the equation in the negative, not just one.

That looks like this: "While 55% of those polled no not think Obama is a better president than GWB was, 65% no not think GWB was a better president than Obama is."

In other words, "Americans tend to rate Barack Obama a better president than predecessor George W. Bush."

Exactly as the article stated.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: "65% no not think GWB was a better president than Obama is" does not mean that "Americans tend to rate Barack Obama a better president than predecessor George W. Bush," just as X is equal to or less than Y is exclusive of X is greater than Y. You are being intentionally stupid.

[Bill Fleming]

KB, no, you are being persistently (and perhaps intentionally) fallacious by always excluding half of the syllogism (hoping no one will notice?)

I didn't say that "65% no not think GWB was a better president than Obama is" means that "Americans tend to rate Barack Obama a better president than predecessor George W. Bush."

Not at all.

What I said was:
"While 55% of those polled no not think Obama is a better president than GWB was, 65% no not think GWB was a better president than Obama is."

Which the same as saying:
"Americans TEND TO rate Barack Obama a better president than predecessor George W. Bush."

[Bill Fleming]

Let's use the same proportions and see if we can reveal the KB fallacy by subtracting the partisan prejudices.

55% of the people polled think zookies taste the same or better foofies.
65% of the people polled think foofies taste the same or better than zookies.

ergo:
the people polled TEND TO think foofies taste better than zookis.

In other words, sorry zookies (and KB) better luck next time.

We're not buying it.

[Ken Blanchard]

I repeat: you are being stupid. No one is arguing that most people think Bush is a better President than Obama. The poll certainly doesn't say that. Neither does it say that most people think that Obama is a better President than Bush. The poll doesn't show that, but USAToday indicated that it did.

That the portion of people who think O is better than B is well below 50% is the really important story, anyway.

ps. You're not really SEEING these foofies and zookies, are you? That would explain a lot.

[Bill Fleming]

Well, I have no problem being stupid, KB, but I've read the article three times now and fail to see where anyone at USAToday said that, KB.

In fact it seems they went to some length to make roughly the same point you're making, did they not?

"It could be argued that saying Obama has been about the same as Bush is also a negative evaluation, given that Bush left office with low approval ratings and Americans generally did not judge his presidency to be very successful," said the Gallup Poll.

The poll added: "Indeed, those who say Obama has been about the same as Bush generally view Obama negatively, with 27% approving and 62% disapproving of the way Obama is handling his job as president."

Put it this way, KB if I were selling foofies and you were selling zookies, and the store was only open one day a year, you probably shouldn't be making WalMart any promises that you were going to outsell me.

[Bill Fleming]

p.s. No, the real story is a level deeper than the point you cite. But since you think I'm a dummy, I'll let you dig it out yourself, professor. Maybe you can make another post out of it, and in doing so, screw that one all up too. ;^)

[Ken Blanchard]

One more try and then I give up. USAToday said this: "Americans tend to rate Barack Obama a better president than predecessor George W. Bush." Now "Americans tend" means anything at all, it means "more often than not." That would not be true. If it means that, more often than not, Americans rank Obama higher or equal to Bush, that would true but meaningless (77%). The opposite is equally true, that more people rank Bush higher or equal to Obama (56%). I can't be sure, but I think that was the zookie/fookie point. If p and ~p are equally true, then p has no truth value. That was my point, and I am obviously right.

[Bill Fleming]

You should just give up, Ken. No matter how hard you turn the crank, the 9 point difference between between Obama and GWB is not going to disappear. The rest is smoke and mirrors. I do agree with you on one thing. It would be to your party's strategic advantage to try to obfuscate the obvious. And I admire your craftsmanship at doing it.

[Donald Pay]

Who cares? What a crock of shit!!! The real problem is that Obama has embraced Republicanism. I don't think either one is worth spit.

[Jimi]

"The real problem is that Obama has embraced Republicanism"

It is a nice slogan...but where's the beef? You gotta have some fact based analysis to back up this crap if you expect people to take it seriously.

I see only one similarity and it is a stretch. You could say that the increase in Afghansistan is a Republican trait, but the policy under Bush was to be minimal in Afghansistan because it is land locked, hence the footprint in Iraq, which Obama has pushed to leave a presense less than what Bush wanted to leave.

I don't recall Single Payer Health Care, increased taxes across the board, Cap & Trade, the increase in EPA regulation, and Financial Reform being Republicanism.

[Jimi]

"The real problem is that Obama has embraced Republicanism"

It is a nice slogan...but where's the beef? You gotta have some fact based analysis to back up this crap if you expect people to take it seriously.

I see only one similarity and it is a stretch. You could say that the increase in Afghansistan is a Republican trait, but the policy under Bush was to be minimal in Afghansistan because it is land locked, hence the footprint in Iraq, which Obama has pushed to leave a presense less than what Bush wanted to leave.

I don't recall Single Payer Health Care, increased taxes across the board, Cap & Trade, the increase in EPA regulation, and Financial Reform being Republicanism.

[Dave]

Pardon me while I chuckle in the background...

Nice PROJECTION KB!

And Donald hit the nail on the head!

jimi.... jimi is not reading the papers... "I don't recall Single Payer Health Care, increased taxes across the board, Cap & Trade, the increase in EPA regulation, and Financial Reform being Republicanism." Anyone with TWO synapses understands NONE of these things came to pass... NONE! Obama never even advocated for single payer, taxes are DOWN, Cap and trade died in the crib, EPA regs died in the NICU, and any financial reforms are having the plug pulled... But that wont stop jimi from eating the fascist shrooms...

[Dave]

REAL, inflation adjusted, and current, fascist shrooms...

[Ken Blanchard]

I do give up Bill. I concede. The fact that more people think that Obama is better than Bush than vice verse is the only relevant fact. The fact that independents think the opposite is immaterial. Cling to that!

[Jimi]

Dave,

"Obama never even advocated for single payer, taxes are DOWN, Cap and trade died in the crib, EPA regs died in the NICU, and any financial reforms are having the plug pulled."

This is what Obama advocates. Republicans do not advocate for this stuff...that's the point!

[lol]

So much partisan bias in here, esp. coming from Bill.

Face it, most people don't think Obama is better than Bush. That's the ultimate conclusion that can be derived from the stats. No amount of your sophistry is going to make a bit of difference.