Some thoughts about likeability (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DarkSteven -> Some thoughts about likeability (9/24/2012 5:36:04 AM)

Christie's RNC speech said (paraphrased) that we're voting for someone competent, not someone likeable. That both implied that Obama was incompetent, and acknowledged that Romney is considered less likeable than Obama. Christie's point was that likeability is not a major criterion for a President.

I'm not so sure. Nixon and LBJ are examples of two Presidents that were not very likeable, and they both had an attitude of "screw the others, this is MY goal" that harmed them. Reagan OTOH was well liked even by people who hated his policies and had to work with him. The idea that people will work as well with someone they dislike, as they will with someone they like, just doesn't hold water with me.

Romney's already disproved Christie. The leaked video about the 47% was surreptitiously recorded by a waiter (who presumably did not like Romney) and publicized by Jimmy Carter's grandson, who was angry about all the swipes Romney had made at his grandfather on the campaign trail.




subspaceseven -> RE: Some thoughts about likeability (9/24/2012 7:18:11 AM)

I think he has lead such a pampered life, he only knows how to talk down to people. Unless you are what ever he considers his level, he has no idea how to talk to you.

he is just very awkward with people he does not know, now as President, he is going to meet a lot of people he does not know and who do not like the USA, it would help if he learned a thing or two about just chatting with people.

He may make a good business man, with his money...but I do not think he gives a dam about anyone else's, and as a business man, why should he...as President he needs to be able to convince people has has their back...hard to do when you tell half the country you are nothing more then a drain on him making money




subrob1967 -> RE: Some thoughts about likeability (9/24/2012 7:47:55 AM)

Nixon or Johnson may not have been likable as a person, but here's their average approval rating for their first term.

Lyndon Johnson
November 1963-January 1965
74.2

Richard Nixon
January 1969-January 1973
55.8

As opposed to Jimmy & Bill

Jimmy Carter
January 1977-January 1981
45.5

Bill Clinton
January 1993-January 1997
49.6


I'd say Christie has a valid point, one doesn't need to be seen as a nice guy, one does have to lead the country.




mnottertail -> RE: Some thoughts about likeability (9/24/2012 8:08:48 AM)

And I agree to some extent, but there has to be some small human connection.   It doesn't matter in any case, he is unable to lead the country in any case.
                                                        




subspaceseven -> RE: Some thoughts about likeability (9/24/2012 8:24:57 AM)

Why did you leave out Reagan, Kennedy... I mean you choose Presidents who left the the office under some lousy conditions, Ok not as bad as how Kennedy left but I hope you get my point




DompairWantsubf -> RE: Some thoughts about likeability (9/24/2012 8:37:21 AM)

A mexican born romney running for president is looking down on American citizens. Will wonders never cease?




kalikshama -> RE: Some thoughts about likeability (9/24/2012 9:05:20 AM)

The Imaginary Campaign

On Aug. 31, the night after the Clint Eastwood empty-chair colloquy at the Republican Convention, Jon Stewart identified the radioactive ingredient that would provide the fuel for Mitt Romney's September meltdown. The Republicans, he noted on The Daily Show, were suffering from "cognitive dissonance." Like Eastwood, they were campaigning against a Barack Obama who was a figment of their imagination. "There is a President Obama that only Republicans can see," he said. That Obama--the Muslim socialist foreigner--was "bent on our wholesale destruction." The mad fact is, Stewart was only scratching the surface. We now know that Romney has been running not only against an imaginary President but against an imaginary electorate as well. This is an electorate in which 47% are looking for handouts, don't pay income taxes and won't "take responsibility...for their lives."

How utterly insulting to the legions of hospital workers, restaurant (and country club) employees and security guards who work their butts off servicing the plutocrats Romney was addressing at his now infamous fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla. These workers barely get by, but they are helped a bit by benefits--like the earned-income and child tax credits invented by Republicans--that limit their exposure to income taxes (although they continue to kick in payroll taxes and pay a host of state and local levies). The great irony is that the vast majority of Romney's 47% would be shocked to learn that they're among the freeloaders, which is why this incident might not, in the end, have all that much impact on the presidential campaign. Romney was right about the larger picture in Boca: this election will be decided by a sliver of middle-class independents, the 6% who can't decide which of these candidates they disdain more.

The conservative commentariat and fat-cat contributors are mystified by Obama's buoyancy. This election should have been a rout, they believe, even for a candidate as lame as Romney. The President is weak, inept, a job killer leading the economy off a cliff. Ah, but there's that cognitive dissonance again: the Romney campaign is running against a phantom economy as well.

Indeed, the Republicans--and the press--have latched onto the one economic statistic that Democrats usually emphasize and that has traditionally led Democrats astray: unemployment. Members of the public certainly are worried about the inability of the economy to create jobs and especially about the employment problems their children will confront. But let's face it: if you add up all the unemployed, underemployed and those who've abandoned the workforce, you're still looking at maybe 15% of the labor market.

And while the Romney campaign was sleeping, the other 85% have seen their circumstances change. "Their household income hasn't improved," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's. "But their household balance sheets are very quickly moving in the right direction." The soaring stock market has restored their 401(k)s to their former plenitude; the values of their homes are creeping back above the waterline in some areas and booming in others; and, Zandi says, we are approaching "historic lows" in delinquency rates on consumer credit-card debt and auto and appliance loans. Our nation's feckless freeloaders have behaved responsibly since the 2008 crash. They've reduced their debts. They're feeling better about their circumstances. And suddenly, the percentage of people who think the country is on the right track is surging, especially in important swing states like Ohio, where the economic picture has improved dramatically.

It is the business of a presidential challenger to overstate the dire situation the incumbent has inflicted on a betrayed public. Bill Clinton certainly overstated the extent of the economic recession in 1992. But there are limits. There is reality. In this country, successful politicians have always avoided apocalyptic predictions. This year, however, Republicans have routinely embraced the dark side. If Obama is re-elected, "I don't know that our country really survives four more years of all the regulations," Senator Rand Paul told CNN's Wolf Blitzer during the Republican Convention. Blitzer called him on it, saying, "Wait a second. If President Obama is re-elected, you think the United States of America, in four years, will not be the United States of America?" Paul beat a hasty retreat.

Romney has lived the past six years in his party's overheated shark tank, spending more time pestering plutocrats for cash than meeting with and listening to the general public. I suspect Romney doesn't really believe that 47% of the electorate are moochers; he was just dialing for dollars. But it's becoming increasingly difficult to see how the man who mouthed those words, whether he believes them or not, can be elected President.




kdsub -> RE: Some thoughts about likeability (9/24/2012 9:24:52 AM)

Not sure how to answer you...I have liked all I've voted for but I have also liked some I did not vote for. When it comes to likeability among fellow congressmen ...the president...and getting things done I think Clinton proved things can get done even among those that hated each other.

Just for fun I have listed my voting record below...it would be fun to see others.

Johnson…Liked him voted for him

Nixon…did not like him did not vote for him…I was right

Carter…Liked him voted for him…Big mistake

Reagan…Liked him voted for him…twice

George Bush…Liked him voted for him

Bill Clinton…Liked him voted for him twice

George W Bush…Liked him did Not vote for him…twice.

Obama…liked him voted for him will again.

Butch




DarkSteven -> RE: Some thoughts about likeability (9/24/2012 10:11:16 AM)

rob, you're quoting approval numbers, which are hsrd facts. I'm talking more abstractly of perceived friendliness and likeability. I suspect that Clinton's approval was killed by Lewinsky when the numbers were taken.




mnottertail -> RE: Some thoughts about likeability (9/24/2012 10:24:43 AM)

rob may be quoting approval numbers, and they are everybodies but Willards, so it don't have nothing to do with nothing.




subrob1967 -> RE: Some thoughts about likeability (9/24/2012 11:50:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

rob, you're quoting approval numbers, which are hsrd facts. I'm talking more abstractly of perceived friendliness and likeability. I suspect that Clinton's approval was killed by Lewinsky when the numbers were taken.



These numbers were all first term, Lewinsky was second term Clinton.

That being said, there's really nothing abstract in your OP. You pretty much said Romney sucks as a human being, and Obama sucks as a President. And it's better to be liked than be good at the job.




subrob1967 -> RE: Some thoughts about likeability (9/24/2012 11:51:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

rob may be quoting approval numbers, and they are everybodies but Willards, so it don't have nothing to do with nothing.


Willard hasn't been elected President, or served a 4 year term yet Chum.

The topic is about likability and how it benefits a President... Do get with the program.




mnottertail -> RE: Some thoughts about likeability (9/24/2012 12:05:20 PM)

And he wont, pal.




OsideGirl -> RE: Some thoughts about likeability (9/24/2012 12:17:13 PM)

I get "swarmy" off of Mitt.

He's rich and he's always been rich, so when he starts talking about understanding the middle class, it just makes me roll my eyes. Same thing with him asking his wife, who has never held a job in her life, what working women need and want. Bottom line is that he has no concept of what our day to day life is like.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Some thoughts about likeability (9/24/2012 4:56:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Christie's RNC speech said (paraphrased) that we're voting for someone competent, not someone likeable. That both implied that Obama was incompetent, and acknowledged that Romney is considered less likeable than Obama. Christie's point was that likeability is not a major criterion for a President.

I'm not so sure. Nixon and LBJ are examples of two Presidents that were not very likeable, and they both had an attitude of "screw the others, this is MY goal" that harmed them. Reagan OTOH was well liked even by people who hated his policies and had to work with him. The idea that people will work as well with someone they dislike, as they will with someone they like, just doesn't hold water with me.

Romney's already disproved Christie. The leaked video about the 47% was surreptitiously recorded by a waiter (who presumably did not like Romney) and publicized by Jimmy Carter's grandson, who was angry about all the swipes Romney had made at his grandfather on the campaign trail.


That's an unbelievably well framed argument.

I'd still rather pick someone who knows how to run a business.




DarkSteven -> RE: Some thoughts about likeability (9/24/2012 5:15:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

That being said, there's really nothing abstract in your OP. You pretty much said Romney sucks as a human being, and Obama sucks as a President. And it's better to be liked than be good at the job.


Uh, no. I said that Obama is more likeable than Romney.

And Mitt's core argument is that Obama is incompetent and he is capable. As he blunders time after time, his argument is losing credibility.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Some thoughts about likeability (9/24/2012 5:25:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

That being said, there's really nothing abstract in your OP. You pretty much said Romney sucks as a human being, and Obama sucks as a President. And it's better to be liked than be good at the job.


Uh, no. I said that Obama is more likeable than Romney.

And Mitt's core argument is that Obama is incompetent and he is capable. As he blunders time after time, his argument is losing credibility.


I agree Steven...I wish Romney would focus more on what he can do....what he would/will do, as opposed to what Obama hasn't.

And as much as I'd like that to be true, races and elections prove time and again that, even as we all wish it weren't so....mud slinging sells.

Just like T&A.




fucktoyprincess -> RE: Some thoughts about likeability (9/25/2012 7:26:53 AM)

Personally, I read this as only a comment on this particular election - and the RNC is choosing to frame this as competency vs. likability. (I didn't see this as a comment on previous elections or candidates - but I haven't heard the whole speech, so I could be wrong.)

Let's leave aside the competency moniker (which I feel is still up for grabs).

It does seem like it is a full fledged admission on the part of the RNC that Romney is not a likable person. Well, I could have told the RNC that a long time ago, but I suppose awareness is a good thing, and better late than never. [&:]




FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: Some thoughts about likeability (9/25/2012 1:18:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Nixon or Johnson may not have been likable as a person, but here's their average approval rating for their first term.

Lyndon Johnson
November 1963-January 1965
74.2

Richard Nixon
January 1969-January 1973
55.8

As opposed to Jimmy & Bill

Jimmy Carter
January 1977-January 1981
45.5

Bill Clinton
January 1993-January 1997
49.6


I'd say Christie has a valid point, one doesn't need to be seen as a nice guy, one does have to lead the country.

Christie himself is loved everywhere. By food vendors.
Here are the two tables that matter in the temporal sense. But I would stress that in the long run of the recording process historically, these stats are looked  at as "culturally interesting", since they say more about the general public 's mood at the moment in history and may not even reflect what is really happening historically or what specifically a president is doing in the course of executing his duties.
   That said, Chris Christie more likely used the analogy to subliminally alleviate the fears on the part of Republicans that Romney is just plain  unlikable in the minds of most Americans. And while an elected President doesn't have to focus as much on being "likeable". An unelected candidate sure as hell better.
   To cite subrob's prime example, Nixon, he GREATLY expanded on Kennedy's use of popular media transcending from more 'traditional mediums" such as news programs into "controversial", edgy forms of prime time entertainment such as a show called "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-in".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFEhmF-cSi8

And there was rather considerable controversy over his being disallowed an opportunity to be on the show (late 1067). And as time and the election year wore on, Nixon was well lambasted by the duo, as well as a host of other young talent featured on the show. And in 1969, the NUMBER ONE show in the US was taken off the air after considerable pressure on CBS. Here's an interview with the Smothers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqriMwc53es
A number of people in my field feel that Romney, in his dealings with the media more closely resembles Nixon, than the figurehead he would want us to believe he represents a symbolic return to. They've cited his repeated appeals in interviews during the summer that attempted to couple his business record to the privacy and sanctity of family life, while simultaneously trying to run on it as an "ATTRIBUTE" or asset in his campaign, which would lead a thinking person to believe it was on the table for analysis and rebuttal by the opposition (Everything of Obama's history CLEARLY IS on the table, all the way back to when he had a "fro"). The other aspect cited has been that behind the scenes when caught on tape, he is far more reminiscent of Nixon in his backroom dealings as evidenced by the recent 50 minutes of video made public.
   Again, here are the more telling tables from the same source subrob submitted with his own unique lens:
Job Approval Highs




President

Date(s)

High
approval rating






%



Harry Truman
June 1945

87



Dwight Eisenhower
December 1956

79



John Kennedy
April 1961

83



Lyndon Johnson
February 1964

79



Richard Nixon
November 1969 and

67



January 1973





Gerald Ford
August 1974

71



Jimmy Carter
March 1977

75



Ronald Reagan
May 1981 and May 1986

68



George H.W. Bush
February 1991

89



Bill Clinton
December 1998

73



George W. Bush
September 2001

90
Job Approval Lows




President

Date(s)

Low
approval rating






%



Harry Truman
February 1952

22



Dwight Eisenhower
March 1958

48



John Kennedy
September 1963

56



Lyndon Johnson
August 1968

35



Richard Nixon
July 1974 and August 1974

24



Gerald Ford
January 1975 and March 1975

37



Jimmy Carter
June 1979

28



Ronald Reagan
January 1983

35



George H.W. Bush
July 1992

29



Bill Clinton
June 1993

37



George W. Bush
October 2008

25




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875