Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that's somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country's difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.

-Political Wire

 

 

 

Keep in mind that President Bush's approval rating was only 22% when he left office. So the fact that 44% would rather have him back than our current president is amazing. Only 50% of America would prefer Obama over Bush at this point.

 

 

As of right now Obama's approval rating is just 47%, down from 65% a year ago today. It is looking more and more like the Republicans will take back the senate in 2010, and at this rate Obama doesn't look good early for a 2012 reelection. Time will tell.

He inherited a tough situation but has made it worse. Unemployment is a couple of points higher than what he said it would be WITHOUT the $787 billion stimulus but amazingly the MSM still keeps saying the stimulus worked. The next round of porkmulus (to supposedly create jobs) will be another failure. It would be great if the Democrats lose the Senate but that's unlikely to happen. They'll keep 51 to 53 seats.

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that's somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country's difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.

-Political Wire

 

 

 

Keep in mind that President Bush's approval rating was only 22% when he left office. So the fact that 44% would rather have him back than our current president is amazing. Only 50% of America would prefer Obama over Bush at this point.

 

 

As of right now Obama's approval rating is just 47%, down from 65% a year ago today. It is looking more and more like the Republicans will take back the senate in 2010, and at this rate Obama doesn't look good early for a 2012 reelection. Time will tell.

 

 

The problem with your logic is two-fold. First, it presumes that someone who disapproves of Bush would automatically vote for Obama. A lot of people who disapproved of Bush were conservatives who thought he wasnt conservative enough, therefore they disapproved of him, but would never vote for Obama. So youre mixing up stats to prove a point.

 

Second, no matter what the circumstances, no particular president in the modern age obtains significant vote tallies because of the divided nature of this country. Clinton never got more than 50% of the vote despite his popularity. Bush never got more than 51% despite 9-11. Obama only got 53% despite the disaster of the Bush years. So for people to prefer Obama at least a 50% clip doesnt really reflect anything.

 

Also, youre select with the approval polls. A lot of them have him over 50%. Check out gallup, which im positive has him over 50% with a net of +7 or so.

He inherited a tough situation but has made it worse. Unemployment is a couple of points higher than what he said it would be WITHOUT the $787 billion stimulus but amazingly the MSM still keeps saying the stimulus worked. The next round of porkmulus (to supposedly create jobs) will be another failure. It would be great if the Democrats lose the Senate but that's unlikely to happen. They'll keep 51 to 53 seats.

 

 

 

How has the stimulus not worked?

"another big blow for Obama" :o

 

lol, yawn. Usually around 50% of americans generally prefer the other party.

 

 

Also, youre select with the approval polls.  A lot of them have him over 50%.  Check out gallup, which im positive has him over 50% with a net of +7 or so.

 

Using real clear politics, average of all the polls.

The problem with your logic is two-fold. First, it presumes that someone who disapproves of Bush would automatically vote for Obama. A lot of people who disapproved of Bush were conservatives who thought he wasnt conservative enough, therefore they disapproved of him, but would never vote for Obama. So youre mixing up stats to prove a point.

 

Second, no matter what the circumstances, no particular president in the modern age obtains significant vote tallies because of the divided nature of this country. Clinton never got more than 50% of the vote despite his popularity. Bush never got more than 51% despite 9-11. Obama only got 53% despite the disaster of the Bush years. So for people to prefer Obama at least a 50% clip doesnt really reflect anything.

 

Also, youre select with the approval polls. A lot of them have him over 50%. Check out gallup, which im positive has him over 50% with a net of +7 or so.

 

I don't give this poll much credence myself because that 44% is probably close to the same 45 to 46 percent that voted for McCain. However I need to correct a couple of things:

 

I don't know what you define as a "significant vote tally" or the "modern era" for that matter, but Clinton never got more than 50% of the vote because he was facing a legitimate third party candidate in Ross Perot. This is too important to leave out because Perot got a huge chunk of the popular vote in 1992 (almost 20%) despite not winning any states. Perot also got a healthy 8% of the vote in 1996.

 

 

 

 

What? I say Clinton didnt get significant amount of votes, and you point out that a lot of people voted for Perot? How does that change what I said? Did the Perot voters actually vote for Clinton, but we secretly labeled it something else? It doesnt change the fact that of the X amount of people who came out to vote, Clinton was not able to convince a majority of them to choose him as president. But hey, maybe you should point out that I forgot that people who voted for Lyndon LaRouche actually voted for Clinton.

 

 

And what does it matter what the modern age is defined as? Would my point have changed if I said its been 25 years since a president, republican or democrat, has been able to convince more than 53 percent of the population to select him as a president? It still goes to the crux of his criticism of Obama only having 50% of the vote in a hypothetical matchup, when that isnt that bad compared to the past 25 years. But I guess, following your logic, I should have given Obama the 6% of the undecideds also.

 

This is why having discussions with you is an exercise in head banging sometimes. You zone in on some seriously silly points, and pummel away at them. I believe the phrase is "missing the forest for the trees."

 

Secondly, if you look at the Real Clear Politics aggregate of all of the polls, Obama is a +1.3 (47.1/45.8). Only one poll has him above 50% and that's ABC/Washington Post. Gallup has him below 50% (at 48%) with a +4 spread.

 

They had him at 53-40 a few days before that. But you and cubbies are right, the drop in the last few days caused by Obama taking a sh*t too long means he is finished 4 years from now. Thats some sound political analysis you have there. We should also continue to judge presidents by their dropoffs from unnatural poll boosts after events like inaugurations and wars.

 

Btw, Bush had a lower job approval in the 04 election year. Clearly he was crushed in that election.

 

WASHINGTON — President Bush's approval rating dropped to the lowest of his presidency in a poll taken after a week of revelations about abuse of Iraqi prisoners and questions about whether Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should keep his job.Forty-six percent of Americans approve of Bush's job performance in the USA TODAY/ CNN/Gallup Poll released Monday. That's 3 percentage points lower than his 49% in three polls earlier this year. Majorities say they disapprove of how he's handling Iraq and the economy. (Related link: Poll results)

 

 

"For an incumbent to be at 46% job approval at this point in an election year has historically always spelled defeat" for presidents since 1950, says Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll. But he says it's a small sample; only eight presidents have sought re-election, five successfully.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-05-10-bush-poll_x.htm

"another big blow for Obama" :o

 

lol, yawn. Usually around 50% of americans generally prefer the other party.

 

 

Yeah... would anyony care to explain how this is such a big blow to Obama? I mean I'm no super Obama supporter... but from what I'm understanding here... is Bush THAT bad that if 44% of Americans would prefer him it's a "huge blow" to Obama?

 

It's like... oh damn Obama they just tried you bro... 44% would want that monkey as president over you...

That 44% should slit their own throats.

I am merely surprised of how far his popularity has fallen in the course of a year. The stimulus wasn't incredibly popular (a lot of people didn't buy that it was necessary) and he still managed to hold a 60/30 split. I was certain that he would be immune and that the honeymoon would continue longer than it actually did.

 

unemployment rate IMO.

I am merely surprised of how far his popularity has fallen in the course of a year. The stimulus wasn't incredibly popular (a lot of people didn't buy that it was necessary) and he still managed to hold a 60/30 split. I was certain that he would be immune and that the honeymoon would continue longer than it actually did.

 

unemployment rate IMO.

 

 

Ding ding ding!

.

Unemployment rate in George W. Bush's first year

 

2001

Jan- 4.2 Dec- 5.7

Growth: -1.5%

 

 

 

Unemployment rate in Barack Obama's first year

 

 

2009

Jan- 7.7 Dec- 10.0

Growth: -2.3%

 

 

 

Rasmussen Report of Obama's approval Rating released yesterday: 45% Approve, 54% Disapprove

 

RCP Has the average at 47.8% Approve 45.5% Disapprove (65%, 27% a year ago)

 

 

Generic Congressional Vote has America favoring Republicans for the first time in years:

 

Republicans: 44.6% Democrats: 43.5%

 

 

Looks like America is ready for some change... :mis2

Unemployment rate in George W. Bush's first year

 

2001

Jan- 4.2 Dec- 5.7

Growth: -1.5%

 

 

 

Unemployment rate in Barack Obama's first year

 

 

2009

Jan- 7.7 Dec- 10.0

Growth: -2.3%

 

 

 

Rasmussen Report of Obama's approval Rating released yesterday: 45% Approve, 54% Disapprove

 

RCP Has the average at 47.8% Approve 45.5% Disapprove (65%, 27% a year ago)

 

 

Generic Congressional Vote has America favoring Republicans for the first time in years:

 

Republicans: 44.6% Democrats: 43.5%

 

 

Looks like America is ready for some change...

 

 

You cant seriously believe what you just wrote. You can close your eyes and imagine a world different from reality, but it doesn't make it so. I don't think even penguino can defend this horrible argument.

 

This is like the person who forgot to fill the car with gas blaming the next driver for the tank being empty.

Yeah that has to be the worst argument I've seen in a while... it is virtually impossible to compare the two. Job loss is something that Obama cannot control in the first 12 months of his preisdency. At the same time, Bush couldnt control it on his terms either.

 

Yeah, and Im sure you can totally make that case on Bush, considering 9/11 didnt happen in that year. I mean, I guess it had no effect on the economic situation considering it was hmm... World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2 blown to the ground. And I mean... I guess it didnt shape today as we know it... did it?

 

And of course... 2009 wasnt the followup of a stock market crash... was it? Did you honestly expect Obama (or any human presidential candidate for that matter?) to do that much better?

I'm not "pushing the idea", I said it's my opinion. What am I a cable news host?

 

If it's so clear to you that the healthcare proposal is the cause for it, why are you surprised by the drop in approval? Shouln't you rather have seen this coming? It wasn't a shock he was going to try & get healthcare reform done, everyone knew it was coming, and everyone knew it would be difficult. Is it plausible that healthcare reform plays a role? Of course it's plausible.

 

And whether people blamed unemployment on Bush initially isn't really relevant to me. A lot of people demanded that the stimulus would reverse unemployment immediately. I know he likes to remind everyone that he inherited an economic mess but if unemployment starts to turn around his approval ratings will edge up. It probably won't soon.

 

 

I really don't see the drama here. A new party takes over, whether it's president or congress. He/they get some honeymoon time, sure, but ultimately they're going to try & push their agenda through, and then people start to take sides again and we're right back to around 50-50. And when things aren't all sunny - whether it's economy/wars/whatever - then the minority party is bound to gain a little. Even if it's by doing nothing.

Yeah that has to be the worst argument I've seen in a while... it is virtually impossible to compare the two. Job loss is something that Obama cannot control in the first 12 months of his preisdency. At the same time, Bush couldnt control it on his terms either.

 

Yeah, and Im sure you can totally make that case on Bush, considering 9/11 didnt happen in that year. I mean, I guess it had no effect on the economic situation considering it was hmm... World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2 blown to the ground. And I mean... I guess it didnt shape today as we know it... did it?

 

And of course... 2009 wasnt the followup of a stock market crash... was it? Did you honestly expect Obama (or any human presidential candidate for that matter?) to do that much better?

 

 

 

 

My post wasn't pushing any idea of mine expect a simple explanation as to why I believe Obama's approval rating has dropped. People expected everything to be great after a year or so of Obama and it just isn't happening. I was not making an argument one way or the other, and I was not passing the blame to anyone. I believe the unempolyment rate going up after Obama's first term and the very unpopular bailout and stimulus plans are the reasons for the drop in Obama's popularity.

Obama's approval rating is around 53%. Given the state of the economy, that's actually pretty phenomenal.

 

I agree with penguino that Obama's approvals will start to tank if the employment situation doesn't improve. I am not sure exactly when that will happen, but eventually it will. I think part of the reason that Obama's approval ratings have stayed steady is that he is clearly making an effort to improve the economy. It's not like the guy just decided to sit back and do nothing. People may disagree with his approach, but it is harder to disapprove of someone when you think he is making a genuine and sincere effort.

Where are you getting 53% approval? I only see a approval rating that high being issued by AP, which doesn't have much of a polling reputation (at least compared to some of the other pollsters that have him much lower) and is showing a number far removed from everyone else. Most reputable agencies have had Obama below 50% with an average approval rating of around 48%. You can't just cherry pick the highest percentage that makes the headlines and assume that it's accurate.

 

I wouldn't say that's phenomenal, either. As I said earlier, he is still in the timeframe where he can still convincingly divert some of the blame back to George W. Bush. Let's see where things go by the end of summer.

 

 

Fair enough. We all know this is an inexact science. The margin of error on this stuff is about 3-4% and the methodologies used vary in their quality. On average, I would say Obama is around 50, give or take a point or two. His disapproval is around 45, give or take a point of two. It is really difficult to tell which polling outfits are the accurate, since many of them seem to have a partisan bent. Just to pick one out, Rasmussen leans HEAVILY Republican. Whatever he ends up saying I end up disagreeing with, because he is consistently leaning R.

 

I'd say Obama's approval is about 48-52%. Historically, that is about where most presidents are at this point in their presidency. But most presidents aren't dealing with 10% unemployment. And those that were, like Reagan (as pointed out by FM in this thread), have had very low approval ratings (35% in the case of Reagan). Reagan could have convincingly blamed Carter, but he still had low approval. That's why I said his numbers are phenomenal.

 

His approvals will fluctuate a great deal, as they do for all presidents. At some point his approval ratings will be down to 42/43. And then he will bounce back. That's how it works.

Again...where are you getting your numbers from?

 

Are you using a scientific polling aggregator or are you just guessing?

 

I acknowledge that there are some polling biases. That's why I have never singularly quoted Rasmussen; their numbers are too "out there." Quoting the AP 53% as you did earlier is no different than quoting the Rasmussen number. That's why I use the aggregate. RCP does a fine aggregate (they have had Obama hovering around 48% approval / 46% disapproval since the State of the Union).

 

The difference with Reagan is that he pursued policies that were blatantly unpopular (but inevitably worked), as I argued earlier in this thread. The public in 1983 despised Paul Volcker but they love Ben Bernanke today. He also had the entire press opposed to his actions. The economic situation was also arguably worse (high inflation). Reaganomics also seemed to present more skepticism among the public than Keynesianism does today.

 

I wouldn't say his rating is phenomenal; it's about where I would expect considering all of the variables (demographics, timeframe, and the nature of Obama's agenda).

 

 

 

I got my numbers from pollster.com, but I subtracted out Rasmussen's polling numbers. I said his approval is probably around 48-52, which is in line with RCP (which puts him at 49%). RCP itself includes Rasmussen. Predictably, Rasmussen is the only polling outfit on RCP that has net negative numbers for Obama (-7%). Taking out Rasmussen, which RCP does not do, we see an approval rating of about 49 and disapproval of about 45%. This is EXACTLY in line with what I said. I'm not sure if you're contradicting me intentionally to make me look bad or what.

I'm not contradicting. It seemed like you were inventing your own formula.

 

Sure, you can take out Rasmussen but why still include the recent AP poll that is possibly just as bogus? Or Ipsos for that matter? There can be extremes in both directions.

 

 

The AP Poll is usually bad, but does not systematically lean one way or the other. They're just not good at polls. That's a bit different from Rasmussen, which clearly leans R.

 

In any case, I said Obama is likely between 48-52. You quoted RCP, which includes all major polls, and they have him at 49. I didn't pick the 48-52 range out of thin air.

Again, I'm not trying to call you out on this. I'm just expressing the fact that it's always wise to either name the pollster or initially list the precise steps you used to derive that number.

 

 

You're an academic, aren't you? I agree with you.