Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Were Clinton's numbers ever this bad?

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 (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
TheBlob Donating Member (805 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 01:36 PM
Original message
Were Clinton's numbers ever this bad?
I know when Clinton left office his approval was in the low 60's, at the height of impeachment he was in the mid 70's.

Anyone know the last time we had a President with such low approval ratings?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. Worse...
48% one year before re-election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Langis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. What was going on around that time?
Edited on Thu Sep-25-03 01:39 PM by Langis
To make his numbers so bad?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBlob Donating Member (805 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. That's not worse than some of these mid-40's ratings
for Bush that have been abundant the past week or so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. That's so...
..but I think most people put more stock in Gallup. I was referring to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zero Gravitas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. Yes, but
they were trending up at the time. Smirk's are going steeply down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Langis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. I don't think they were ever this bad
I wasn't into politics back then, but I'm almost positive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
59millionmorons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
5. Yes
Actually Gallup had Clinton last approval at the high sixty's. I will find that for you. Clinton was lower at times. Each time the crazy wingers put out false stories (whitewater, vince foster etc) and the media ran with them his numbers would slip. But the GOP went to far with impeachment and the GOP paid for it and Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any President in history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fertilizeonarbusto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. And rightly so
Damn, I miss having a real President-and one that actually cared about people like us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
7. I'm pretty sure his numbers were much worse.
The first two years of his presidency were really grim. I think he may have fallen into the 30s at one point.

None of the Democratic candidates wanted to be seen with Clinton during the 94 campaign. All of the GOP ads had the faces of Democrats morphing into the face of Clinton. He was really unpopular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlaGranny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. I believe that Clinton
didn't "know the ropes" in Washington during his first term and tried to too quickly push his agenda. He stepped on some toes that caused a lot of backlash and the "news people" were all over his case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
9. Yes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
West Coast Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Those are not Job Approval Numbers, Nederland
those are overall favorability numbers. President Clinton always had higher job approval numbers than favorability numbers.

http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm

Chimpy has the opposite problem. His current job disapproval numbers are actually alarmingly high. 47% on the Gallup Poll is pretty awful.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JaneQPublic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. Those are Favorability ratings, not Job Approval ratings
Here's his job approval ratings:

http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm

Looking at the Gallup (that's the one that seems to be used most for historical purposes), I see nothing but numbers in the 50's and 60's.

For clarification, Favorability is simply the popularity numbers, not how well you think the president is doing the job. After the impeachment proceedings, the media made a big issue of the fact that, sure, Clinton's Job Approval ratings were staying high, but his Favorability ratings -- whether people liked him as a person -- were taking a dive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sventvkg Donating Member (448 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
10. DAMN I miss Clinton..I'm embarrassed to be American with Smirky leading
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
11. Clinton's approval rating sunk as low as 38% at one point in 94
Oddly enough it went up during the impeachment proeedings
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Cuz The Economy Was Smoking
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
14. Reagan's numbers were lower at this time in his 1st term
13 months is a very long time in politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
59millionmorons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. the difference is
Reagan and Clinton were rising in the polls at this time, Bush is sinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Timefortruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
17. Look at this

Clinton had worse numbers at times but Chimp sets a record for the rate of drop. People don't like Chimp but when they are afraid they support him anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CMT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
20. he was in the 30's
at one point in 1994 the year we lost congress. So bad numbers don't necessarily mean that a president will be defeated. We have lots of hard work to do to win in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
West Coast Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. If not for 9-11, Chimpy's #s would have been in the 30s..............
by midterm election time. In my opinion, 9-11 delayed his inevitable fall.
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 Dec 27th 2024, 03:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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