Were there ever a time everyone was happy with the president?

[Zeze]

Let's step back and take a look at history.

This partisan politics is bullshit. It's all 'politics' in the way they remain divided NO MATTER WHAT for the benefits of networking and jerking each other off.

Were there ever a time everyone was happy with a president? Who was the most 'successful' president that majority of both parties agree with in recent history?

If the answer can't be yes, I'm saddened for any idiots who take this politics seriously. It's same shit over and over and over and over again every year.

 

[bfdd]

Well I don't know about everyone being happy with, but Bush Sr I believe is the only Pres in the last like 100 years of polling to leave with a higher acceptance % than when he was elected.

 

[Craig234]

The answer to your question isn't much help. Three peaks in presidential popularity were both right after each Bush started wars with Iraq and after 9/11.

JFK's popularity peaked after his biggest mess, the Bay of Pigs. He joked about it, saying the worse he did the more his approval went up.

 

[monovillage]

Maybe George Washington, it's been downhill from there.

 

[senseamp]

Usually there is some mass stupidity going on when this is happening. 9/11, yeah, let's all be happy with the guy who dropped the ball. Iraq war, yeah, let's all be happy with the guy who is dropping a trillion bucks and thousands of lives on a BS war.

 

[Craig234]

Fact is, sometimes when the President is doing the best things is when he has especially low ratings.

For example, we all think (except a few radical Libertarians) the civil rights bills were a good thing eliminating segregation and helping voter rights etc.

But JFK had to delay the bills because they threatened his entire agenda, and LBJ recognized he was 'handing the White House to Republicans' by passing them.

A rare exception is that when FDR had his first term, ratings were pretty high for his battle against the Great Depression.

 

[alphatarget1]

What was it like living in the the Eisenhower administration?

 

[rudder]

I am happy with obama at the moment. He is setting the bar for complete suckage to an all new low. This makes it easier to rate other presidents.

Selling a stimulus plan (which is bad in the first place) at a company who ships jobs off to Costa Rica... then saying this same company is going to benefit from the stimulus.... I mean W-T-F?

 

[Ausm]

What was it like living in the the Eisenhower administration?

Eisenhower would not even come close to passing a Republican purity test

Oh the Republicans had a man on the grassy knoll.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Kennedy's lowest approval rating throughout his entire presidency appears to have been polled at 56%. Roosevelt at 48% Eisenhower at 48%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating

Dunno about presidents before that, because I don't think they really had the logistics in place to gather approval ratings, and honestly, I think they had more important things to do than worry about metrics.

 

[werepossum]

Kennedy's lowest approval rating throughout his entire presidency appears to have been polled at 56%. Roosevelt at 48% Eisenhower at 48%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating

Dunno about presidents before that, because I don't think they really had the logistics in place to gather approval ratings, and honestly, I think they had more important things to do than worry about metrics.

There wasn't a 24 hour news cycle either, and the press chose to hide a lot of things. People WANT to approve of their President, so the more they know about his actions, the more likely they will find something of which they disapprove.

Two other things - as government becomes ever larger and more intrusive, the stakes for winning and losing become higher. That makes for high emotion both for and against the President.

And lastly, I bet we'd find that Presidential approval tracks more positively with the economy than with any other factor. We tend to think the President runs the economy.

 

[sportage]

I just re-watched a bio on Clinton and the Clinton years. One huge difference apparent right away is how Clinton, in many ways, was worse off than Obama with governing. But Clinton hired, fired and changed the people around him when he needed to. Something Obama does not seem to understand. Clinton was surrounded by smart people. If things got tough, Clinton made the necessary changes. They fought like hungry mean dogs. Focused. If Clinton had not been smart and did what was necessary, whatever was necessary, Clinton would probably floundered around much like Obama has been doing. Unfocused. Weak.
Makes me wonder about what goes through Obama's mind. Why he definitely lacks that instinct of survival necessary to be president. The must for any successful president.

Obama is damm lucky he hasn’t had some personal scandal crop up in the mix. That would have easily been his nail in the coffin for his presidency. Obama would never survive a personal attack that had any real meat. Like a sex scandal....

 

[ShawnD1]

Maybe George Washington, it's been downhill from there.

Also 1 week after 9/11. Then it was all downhill again.

 

[Craig234]

There was a good interview tonight with Rachel Maddow and Jimmy Carter, where he said how well he could work wit Republicans. He also said that he and Reagan *did not accept campaign contributions, paying for their campaigns with the $2 income tax fee people can give.* Of course, at the time there were under 1,000 lobbyists, versus the 36,000 now.

 

[xaeniac]

Remember this; You can not make everyone happy.

 

[Rainsford]

There wasn't a 24 hour news cycle either, and the press chose to hide a lot of things. People WANT to approve of their President, so the more they know about his actions, the more likely they will find something of which they disapprove.

Two other things - as government becomes ever larger and more intrusive, the stakes for winning and losing become higher. That makes for high emotion both for and against the President.

And lastly, I bet we'd find that Presidential approval tracks more positively with the economy than with any other factor. We tend to think the President runs the economy.

I'm not sure it's the 24 hour news cycle so much as it's the presence of opinion blended with information in media today and the huge increase in the number of sources to get issue coverage from. It's easy to surround yourself with a partisan echo chamber if you wanted to, which tends to reinforce and exaggerate issues. So you tend to get positions like Bush Jr is a fascist and Obama is a "Marxist". Positions which are objectively pretty ridiculous, but seem reasonable when you're surrounded by people saying that.

 

[QuantumPion]

I'm not sure it's the 24 hour news cycle so much as it's the presence of opinion blended with information in media today and the huge increase in the number of sources to get issue coverage from. It's easy to surround yourself with a partisan echo chamber if you wanted to, which tends to reinforce and exaggerate issues. So you tend to get positions like Bush Jr is a fascist and Obama is a "Marxist". Positions which are objectively pretty ridiculous, but seem reasonable when you're surrounded by people saying that.

Right, because before Fox News, journalists never mixed opinions with facts.

What has changed things is the internet. It allows non-established types to distribute information to a wide audience, independent investigations and fact checking, etc. Prime example - the Bush memo fiasco. In the past, media personalities basically had free reign to sway public opinion in whatever direction they desired by one-sided reporting or outright lying. Not so much any more.

 

[Modelworks]

I had no issues with Reagan or Bush Sr. Reagan annoyed me with the "I can't recall" stuff but other than that I respected him as a person and a President. Bush Sr. I served in the military under and also respected him too. Clinton I liked as a person and he was okay as a President. I liked that he was closer to the average guy you meet on the street than a stuck up politician. Sure he messed up with the scandal, but overall not too bad a guy. Obama I can't stand anymore, the guy has no spine, appears incompetent about what to do and just needs to get out of the way and let someone else attempt to fix things.

 

[werepossum]

I'm not sure it's the 24 hour news cycle so much as it's the presence of opinion blended with information in media today and the huge increase in the number of sources to get issue coverage from. It's easy to surround yourself with a partisan echo chamber if you wanted to, which tends to reinforce and exaggerate issues. So you tend to get positions like Bush Jr is a fascist and Obama is a "Marxist". Positions which are objectively pretty ridiculous, but seem reasonable when you're surrounded by people saying that.

The Vietnam war pretty much consolidated journalism as progressive activism. Opinion was rife in the mainstream media long ago; journalists at the national level had a common viewpoint. This led to an increasing gap between the mainstream viewpoint as put forth by the media, and the average viewpoint of the people, which in turn gave us Fox News, which in turn gave us MSNBC. But I do concede your point; our news has become increasingly niche-oriented, where a particular outlet pushes and reinforces a particular view of the world. The increase in news sources SHOULD have the opposite effect, but since we are all convinced we are correct and we all have limited time to consume news, this no doubt has the effect you describe.

 

[Whiskey16]

Maybe George Washington, it's been downhill from there.

No, certainly not among the Loyalists who failed to escape. That his initial office was neccessarily that of dictator is of a mute point and not worth discussing.

The OP is out of touch. No state may return an absolute favourable political polling without supressing or discounting the certain presence of opposing views.

Fervent patriotism may provide a boost to positive support but more often than not that is the dream of autocrats who will often then abuse such support for criminal intent. A example here was raised of GW Bush and support with the Iraq was -- a prime putrid example of what the dredges of nationalism may enable.

 

[Whiskey16]

The Vietnam war pretty much consolidated journalism as progressive activism. Opinion was rife in the mainstream media long ago; journalists at the national level had a common viewpoint. This led to an increasing gap between the mainstream viewpoint as put forth by the media...

It is shocking to still find defenders of the US action in Vietnam.

War in Vietnam was present long before you arrived. Their war for independance (ironically this topic in one already containing George Washington) can arguably be traced with the Japanese invasion wherein the USA became a prime supporterof the group who would eventually succeed against the USA. With the defeat of the Japanese the small US presence briefly continued support for their revolutionary allies, but that quickly turned after Washington directives in support of resuming French imperialism in Indochina. With the defeat of the French, the USA supplanted their imperial actions, notably in militarily (a damning moral and strategic failure that stains your state through to today) supported what was agreed to by the Vietanmese to be a temporay partition of the state until national elections were to be held.

 

[thraashman]

I am happy with obama at the moment. He is setting the bar for complete suckage to an all new low. This makes it easier to rate other presidents.

Selling a stimulus plan (which is bad in the first place) at a company who ships jobs off to Costa Rica... then saying this same company is going to benefit from the stimulus.... I mean W-T-F?

I'm not thrilled with Obama myself. In fact I'm pretty massively disappointed in him. He's still been better than every Republican president in my lifetime and massively better than any that are currently trying to oppose him.

 

[IGBT]

no.

 

[werepossum]

It is shocking to still find defenders of the US action in Vietnam.

War in Vietnam was present long before you arrived. Their war for independance (ironically this topic in one already containing George Washington) can arguably be traced with the Japanese invasion wherein the USA became a prime supporterof the group who would eventually succeed against the USA. With the defeat of the Japanese the small US presence briefly continued support for their revolutionary allies, but that quickly turned after Washington directives in support of resuming French imperialism in Indochina. With the defeat of the French, the USA supplanted their imperial actions, notably in militarily (a damning moral and strategic failure that stains your state through to today) supported what was agreed to by the Vietanmese to be a temporay partition of the state until national elections were to be held.

Some people value freedom. Others don't.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Clinton made me happy.