Obama: lowest gallup ratings at this point into presidency

[blackangst1]

So. It seems people are waking up: the kid from Chicago is just another huckster who cant deliver. There are some things I like about the guy, but I think the overwhelming feeling is...we got taken. To be fair, I think many people expected (wrongly so) that his promises of bringing the economy back up would be fast. But, on the other side of the coin, he hasnt done much to solidify the future, other than rack up debt and continue the drunken sailor spending of Bush. Well, times ten. Before you attack the source, remember its a gallup poll.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/08/obamas-percent-approval-lowest-president-point/

Obama's 47 Percent Approval Lowest of Any President at This Point


President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent in the latest Gallup poll, the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term.

Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and even Richard Nixon all had higher approval ratings 10-and-a-half months into their presidencies. Obama's immediate predecessor, President George W. Bush, had an approval rating of 86 percent, or 39 points higher than Obama at this stage. Bush's support came shortly after he launched the war in Afghanistan in response to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The next 11 presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, all had higher job approval ratings than Obama at this stage of their tenure. Their ratings were:
-- George W. Bush, 86 percent
-- Bill Clinton, 52 percent
-- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent
-- Ronald Reagan, 49 percent
-- Jimmy Carter, 57 percent
-- Gerald Ford, 52 percent
-- Richard Nixon, 59 percent
-- Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent
-- John Kennedy, 77 percent
-- Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent
-- Harry Truman, 49 percent

 

[Pens1566]

And those #s don't correlate at all to re-election.

/thread

 

[StageLeft]

dubya's numbers were cranked up by 911 and Obama's are getting killed partly because he isn't as impressive as we had hoped and partly because the economy has continued to get worse so people look to leadership to blame.

 

[brblx]

i don't see how we 'got taken.'

it was obama or a hollow mccain puppet. where's the wrong decision?

 

[Genx87]

And those #s don't correlate at all to re-election.

/thread

I think the closest correlation here for Obama is Reagan who was at 49% at this point. Reagan inheritied a disaster of an economy from Carter and it took 2 years before things started turning around.

As for what this means for 2012? I think nothing, not a damn thing. It all depends what the economy looks like in 2012. If it looks up then Obama wins, if it is still in the shitter, he is out.

 

[Robor]

I think the closest correlation here for Obama is Reagan who was at 49% at this point. Reagan inheritied a disaster of an economy from Carter and it took 2 years before things started turning around.

As for what this means for 2012? I think nothing, not a damn thing. It all depends what the economy looks like in 2012. If it looks up then Obama wins, if it is still in the shitter, he is out.

/thread :thumbsup:

 

[Jaskalas]

And those #s don't correlate at all to re-election.

/thread

Not true. The fresh face is not so fresh anymore. He took his stardom and cashed it in. When the time comes for re-election President Obama will be part of the problem that the people who voted for him wanted to fix.

It will be much more difficult for him without the qualities that gave him high poll numbers to begin with. This time around hope and change would be voting against him.

Of course, the President's approval means nothing if the Republicans have nothing decent to muster.

 

[blackangst1]

Not true. The fresh face is not so fresh anymore. He took his stardom and cashed it in. When the time comes for re-election President Obama will be part of the problem that the people who voted for him wanted to fix.

It will be much more difficult for him without the qualities that gave him high poll numbers to begin with. This time around hope and change would be voting against him.

Of course, the President's approval means nothing if the Republicans have nothing decent to muster.

/agree

 

[Pens1566]

Not true. The fresh face is not so fresh anymore. He took his stardom and cashed it in. When the time comes for re-election President Obama will be part of the problem that the people who voted for him wanted to fix.

It will be much more difficult for him without the qualities that gave him high poll numbers to begin with. This time around hope and change would be voting against him.

Of course, the President's approval means nothing if the Republicans have nothing decent to muster.

Absolutely true. The approval ratings at this point in any of the admins listed above aren't indicative of whether or not said president was re-elected or not. This whole topic is a waste.

 

[blackangst1]

Absolutely true. The approval ratings at this point in any of the admins listed above aren't indicative of whether or not said president was re-elected or not. This whole topic is a waste.

Statistics are only important if they reflect your opinion.
~me

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My belief is that this is a reflection of the unrealistic expectation of the voter at large. Obama did run on hope and change, which is not a bad way to go. The problem is that people assumed that it was something which would be immediate and complete.

Well Obama isn't a saint. He's a politician and people ought to know that the rosy future they speak of isn't automatically going to be transferred to reality.

In short, by the time Bush left office, the desire to pick the candidate least like him took over and once again emotion triumphed over intellect.

This isn't Obama's fault. It's the simplistic world view of the voter which is now seeing a correction. Who takes the blame? Anyone other than us, and in this case it's Obama.

 

[theflyingpig]

Not surprising.

 

[werepossum]

I think the closest correlation here for Obama is Reagan who was at 49% at this point. Reagan inheritied a disaster of an economy from Carter and it took 2 years before things started turning around.

As for what this means for 2012? I think nothing, not a damn thing. It all depends what the economy looks like in 2012. If it looks up then Obama wins, if it is still in the shitter, he is out.

I like very little of what Obama has done and attempted to do, but I suspect this is a very cogent analysis of the situation. Americans have very little patience, we're pretty much spoiled children demanding instant results. At a guess, I'd say most people have a radically overinflated sense of the president's power even when his own party has a stranglehold on Congress as well, which makes them think the president isn't doing anything if things don't immediately improve. It's our television mentality; all problems on TV are solved in an hour.

 

[Jaskalas]

My belief is that this is a reflection of the unrealistic expectation of the voter at large. Obama did run on hope and change, which is not a bad way to go. The problem is that people assumed that it was something which would be immediate and complete.

Good news for the President is that he has an entire term to accomplish his goals. Or are four years too soon?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Good news for the President is that he has an entire term to accomplish his goals. Or are four years too soon?

My crystal ball is pretty good, but four years and the Presidency are hard to call. When Bush was elected I supposed we would have a term or two of mostly benign action. Little did we know that airplanes would bring down the WTC, catapulting Bush into a situation which he was incapable of grasping, and unwilling to yield to those better equipped.

Who can say what lies between now and 2012.

 

[fskimospy]

An overwhelming feeling that 'we got taken'? That's odd, I don't know a single person who thinks we got 'taken'. What I HAVE seen is that right wing partisans have continually tried to tell the rest of the country how Obama voters feel about Obama.

While I'm sure there are some people who voted for him that feel taken, his approval rating at it's current lowest ebb is exactly SIX points below the percentage of the vote he got on election day. An overwhelming feeling we got taken? That's pretty silly.

 

[jonks]

huh.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/the-liberal-reagan.html

 

[Slew Foot]

Alot can happen in 4-8 years, heck GWB was at 86% at this particular moment. Not that Obama has any real idea of what to do, but hey, thing tend to fix themselves after a while.

 

[Ausm]

An overwhelming feeling that 'we got taken'? That's odd, I don't know a single person who thinks we got 'taken'. What I HAVE seen is that right wing partisans have continually tried to tell the rest of the country how Obama voters feel about Obama.

While I'm sure there are some people who voted for him that feel taken, his approval rating at it's current lowest ebb is exactly SIX points below the percentage of the vote he got on election day. An overwhelming feeling we got taken? That's pretty silly.

I felt like I was held hostage during 8 years of the Bush reign

 

[quest55720]

My belief is that this is a reflection of the unrealistic expectation of the voter at large. Obama did run on hope and change, which is not a bad way to go. The problem is that people assumed that it was something which would be immediate and complete.

Well Obama isn't a saint. He's a politician and people ought to know that the rosy future they speak of isn't automatically going to be transferred to reality.

In short, by the time Bush left office, the desire to pick the candidate least like him took over and once again emotion triumphed over intellect.

This isn't Obama's fault. It's the simplistic world view of the voter which is now seeing a correction. Who takes the blame? Anyone other than us, and in this case it's Obama.

No it is because Obama ran as a moderate. Soon as he got into the whitehouse he let the liberals in congress run wild. Obama should of wrote a moderate stimulus bill and forced congress to pass it. Then he stood by as the idiots of the far left of his party passed the cap and tax bill. You think the average person cares about global warming during the worst recession since the early 80s? He should of wrote a moderate health care bill and forced congress to pass it. Instead he let Pelosi scew up both bills pass cap and tax and he is paying the price. If Obama would just stand up to the far left of his party and move back to the center his approval would go back up again. I can only hope come next year the republicans can win enough seats to force Obama to the center or have 2 years of beautiful gridlock.

 

[fskimospy]

No it is because Obama ran as a moderate. Soon as he got into the whitehouse he let the liberals in congress run wild. Obama should of wrote a moderate stimulus bill and forced congress to pass it. Then he stood by as the idiots of the far left of his party passed the cap and tax bill. You think the average person cares about global warming during the worst recession since the early 80s? He should of wrote a moderate health care bill and forced congress to pass it. Instead he let Pelosi scew up both bills pass cap and tax and he is paying the price. If Obama would just stand up to the far left of his party and move back to the center his approval would go back up again. I can only hope come next year the republicans can win enough seats to force Obama to the center or have 2 years of beautiful gridlock.

He should have written a 'moderate' stimulus bill? Please describe to me what you think a more moderate stimulus bill would be than the one he passed. I have a sneaking suspicion your view of 'moderate' will turn out to be 'Republican'. In addition I would very much like to see what your idea of a 'moderate' health care bill would be. I bet you that also turns into 'Republican'.

A 'liberal' stimulus bill would have been MUCH larger than the one he passed, and it would not have included any tax cuts. (as the general consensus was that tax cuts were some of the least effective stimulus efforts possible) A 'liberal' health care bill would have been universal single payer health care. With the current bill there won't even be a public insurance entity at all it seems. How in the hell could anyone consider these bills to be 'liberal' unless their point of view is heavily skewed to the right?

People have a tendancy to think that whatever views they hold happen to be 'moderate'. This is not true.

 

[Zebo]

An overwhelming feeling that 'we got taken'? That's odd, I don't know a single person who thinks we got 'taken'. What I HAVE seen is that right wing partisans have continually tried to tell the rest of the country how Obama voters feel about Obama.

While I'm sure there are some people who voted for him that feel taken, his approval rating at it's current lowest ebb is exactly SIX points below the percentage of the vote he got on election day. An overwhelming feeling we got taken? That's pretty silly.

Spend some time at Democratic underground or daily KOS or huffington post place is full of just this thought.

I don't know any dems in RL so can't comment F2F.

 

[exar333]

I like very little of what Obama has done and attempted to do, but I suspect this is a very cogent analysis of the situation. Americans have very little patience, we're pretty much spoiled children demanding instant results. At a guess, I'd say most people have a radically overinflated sense of the president's power even when his own party has a stranglehold on Congress as well, which makes them think the president isn't doing anything if things don't immediately improve. It's our television mentality; all problems on TV are solved in an hour.

Speak for yourself.

 

[exar333]

He should have written a 'moderate' stimulus bill? Please describe to me what you think a more moderate stimulus bill would be than the one he passed. I have a sneaking suspicion your view of 'moderate' will turn out to be 'Republican'. In addition I would very much like to see what your idea of a 'moderate' health care bill would be. I bet you that also turns into 'Republican'.

A 'liberal' stimulus bill would have been MUCH larger than the one he passed, and it would not have included any tax cuts. (as the general consensus was that tax cuts were some of the least effective stimulus efforts possible) A 'liberal' health care bill would have been universal single payer health care. With the current bill there won't even be a public insurance entity at all it seems. How in the hell could anyone consider these bills to be 'liberal' unless their point of view is heavily skewed to the right?

People have a tendancy to think that whatever views they hold happen to be 'moderate'. This is not true.

He should have passed a stimulous bill that was actually spent, that would have helped.

 

[werepossum]

An overwhelming feeling that 'we got taken'? That's odd, I don't know a single person who thinks we got 'taken'. What I HAVE seen is that right wing partisans have continually tried to tell the rest of the country how Obama voters feel about Obama.

While I'm sure there are some people who voted for him that feel taken, his approval rating at it's current lowest ebb is exactly SIX points below the percentage of the vote he got on election day. An overwhelming feeling we got taken? That's pretty silly.

I know several people who think they were taken by Obama. Which is funny because, at odd moments, Obama told us more about his actual agenda than do most candidates, if you just listened to what he said to his core supporters. Or what he said to Joe the Plumber. But for some odd reason several people I know (devoted Democrats) voted for Obama under the impression that he is a centrist or moderate. Of course, by your definition most of Cuba or North Korea would be moderates, so you probably think Obama is a moderate centrist . . .