Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gallup: Obama's approval at start of 2nd yr among the lowest for elected presidents since Eisenhower

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 11:17 AM
Original message
Gallup: Obama's approval at start of 2nd yr among the lowest for elected presidents since Eisenhower
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124949/Approval-Obama-Starts-2010-Shaky-Spot.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama begins his second year as president with 50% of Americans approving and 44% disapproving of his overall job performance. This is well below the 68% approval rating Obama received in his first few days as president, and matches his average for all of December -- which included many days when public support for him fell slightly below that important symbolic threshold.

The latest job approval score is based on Gallup Daily tracking from Jan. 2-4, 2010 -- the first Gallup Daily survey conducted entirely within the new year.

"Obama enjoys 84% approval from Democrats, but closer to 50% approval from independents (currently 47%) and minimal support from Republicans (14%)."President Obama has been walking the public opinion tightrope represented by the 50% job approval line since about mid-November, with his rating wavering between 47% and 53%. However, even when 47% of Americans approved of Obama's overall job performance (in early December), slightly fewer Americans (46%) disapproved. Obama has yet to see his job approval rating descend to the point that more Americans disapprove than approve.

Still, Obama's initial approval rating in his second year as president is among the lowest for elected presidents since Dwight Eisenhower. Only Ronald Reagan -- who, like Obama, took office during challenging economic times -- began his second year in office with a lower approval score (49%). However, Obama's disapproval rating is slightly higher than Reagan's was (44% vs. 40%).

The 50% approval threshold is important because no sitting president whose average approval rating fell below this level in the year he ran for re-election succeeded in winning a second term. However, it may not have much significance relative to re-election at the beginning of year two, as the two presidents (other than Obama) with the lowest approval ratings at this stage of their White House careers were both re-elected, and one of those with the highest approval ratings (George H.W. Bush) was not.

According to the Jan. 2-4 data, views of Obama among various population subgroups are similar to where they have stood in recent weeks. Obama enjoys 84% approval from Democrats, but closer to 50% approval from independents (currently 47%) and minimal support from Republicans (14%). A majority of nonwhites nationwide (76%) approve of the job he is doing, compared with fewer than half of whites (41%). Regionally, support for Obama ranges from a high of 58% in the Middle Atlantic states along the East Coast, down to 35% in the Rocky Mountain states.

-snip-

The meaning of the 50% threshold is somewhat relative. A 50% job approval rating would have been cause for major celebration by George W. Bush for much of his second term. But given the speed at which Obama descended to this level in his first year, today it is more of a warning light that this initially muscular administration remains on the threshold of losing majority support. At the same time, 50% is symbolically superior to 49%, and perhaps offers some encouragement to Obama's supporters that 2010 will bring some improvement in how Americans perceive the president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. It. Just. Doesn't. Matter. Really. I was in polling. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. Meh. How many Presidents in history faced this much trouble,
Edited on Wed Jan-06-10 11:20 AM by TwilightGardener
in a world this complex, with this much scrutiny?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
3. Shocking considering the mess he was handed on the first day.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
4. Hmmmm "I Like Ike"
I remember Ike and although I was very young, I got the impression everyone liked Ike. This surprises me, that he was not popular after his first year...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
5. Bush was good wasn't he.
He even had good approval ratings at one point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cosmocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Bush got the ultimate do over ...
his popularity was plummeting like a rock, then 9-11 hit and he got the biggest reboot of any president ...

People just don't get that the health care bill is driving this ... People WANT health care reform, but like everything else the Rs have turned this process into shiite and people are sick of the PROCESS ...

The bill will not be what we wanted, but it will be an improvement and it will get done.

When it does, BO won't get it all back, but he will get back a good portion of the "capital" that is being chewed up now ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Ain't that the truth!
9/11 MADE Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
7. Clinton and Reagan both had ratings in the 30s during their first terms.
I guess they started their second year with hire ratings, but they fell sometime between the second and third year. Both won reelection in a landslide.

Part of Obama's problem is similar to theirs. He has angered his base, and a lot of them are expressing disapproval. Only 84% of his own party, and only 50% of Independents are both low. When it comes to voting for the next president, though, most of them will still support him in the general election (if he's not unseated in the primaries, and that's unlikely).

The economy will turn around, or at least stabilize, because that's what economies do. He'll start pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and issuing feel-good statistics about both regions by around 2012. People will have an overall positive feeling about him then and forget most of their anger from this year. That's what usually happens. The only elected presidents who lost reelection 1932 were Carter and Bush. Carter had a bad last couple of months, and Bush lost for a lot of reasons, including the best run and most creative campaign I've ever seen. The only others who didn't serve two terms were dead, chose not to run, or were never elected in the first place.

Elections are like any other sport--only the final period really matters.

(Not saying whether that's good or bad, just saying that's what happens.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harkadog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. "Chose not to run"
Interesting way to put it. Presidents don't "Chose not to run". They quit because they know they are going to be defeated. Both Truman and Johnson did not go for elected second terms because they were unpopular. Truman lost the New Hampshire primary and then "chose not to run".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. Actually I forgot about Truman.
I wasn't thinking about Truman's second run. And I get your point.

It is interesting, though, that if you throw Truman and Johnson in the mix and assume a loss, none of the four VPs who followed their president into the White House could win a second term on their own. Probably means something, but no idea what. Maybe that eight years of anything is enough, either to bore the people, or to go wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. we didn't need a Clinton or Reagan--we needed an FDR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. He was dead. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
9. Yes, and Gallup had Ronald Reagan under 50 in January of 1983 and Clinton at 36% in '94
big deal! they both went on to win landslides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
10. no surprise here
the right will always hate him and he has taken one giant shit on his base......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grytpype Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
11. Amazing his approval has held up given the high unemployment.
And everything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC