When the Numbers Just Don’t Work

According to Frank Rich in a New York Times op-ed, the Massachusetts Massacre “was not a referendum on Barack Obama, who in every poll remains one of the most popular politicians in America.”


I don’t want what Mr. Rich is smoking; that’s too much milk and honey for my blood.

With identical approval/disapproval ratings of a record low 47%, I’m thinking he isn’t as popular as Mr. Rich would have us believe. Nixon had a 56% approval and only 20% disapproval rating a year after his inauguration. Even Jimmy Carter was still 51% approval and only 28% disapproval after a year. Reagan had slipped to 49% and 39% by then but was back to 63% to 29% immediately before he left office. Bush 41 was 79% to 10%, far better than Clinton’s 53% to 38%. And, not surprisingly, Bush 43 had 84% approval and only 13% disapproval a year after his inauguration.

I guess Mr. Obama’s “most popularness” is “as compared to Adolph Hitler.” Or to Barney Rubble.

Oddly, David Pogue used his New York Times column this week to decry manufacturers who fudge their numbers.

4 thoughts on “When the Numbers Just Don’t Work

  1. Maybe Rich meant “still breathing,” which would narrow it down a smidge. Or maybe he meant “of those polled on November 1st, 2009, at precisely 11:22:03 AM”

  2. Nah. On November 1st, 2009, at precisely 11:22:03 AM EST, 99.3% of Americans polled were in favor of President Obama.

    Mr. Rich was obviously influenced by the 96 mph breeze recorded on Mount Mansfield today.

  3. Well, at that late hour of the morning, enough selectively chosen *random* Obama supporters are awake to answer their phones coherently and justify that a poll has been taken. After noon would have been better — in order to cull the incoherent ones — and then it would have been 100%.

    — George

Comments are closed.