"The media myth of Obama's "falling poll numbers"

[Clio the Leo]

Pardon me while I state the obvious.

The media myth of Obama's "falling poll numbers"

The release of an Associated Press poll last week that showed President Obama enjoying a healthy job approval rating of 53 percent didn't generate much news beyond the wire service and produced even less commentary among the media's chattering class. Then again, neither did another piece of polling news from January, which showed Obama basking in the glow of a 56 percent job approval rating.

The cold shoulder was expected, though. Why? It's simple: the results didn't fit the script.

Adopting the polar opposite narrative from the Bush era when pundits and reporters seemed obsessed with trying to boost the president's standing, Beltway scribes today have made it plain that when it comes to Obama and polling, good news is no news.

Feeding off right-wing talking points, political journalists love to push the idea that Obama's polling numbers are in the tank and that he's fading fast. It's all part of the preferred, CW narrative that his entire presidency is slipping away. (It must now be "save," according to Newsweek.)

Does the White House wish Obama's job approval rating was higher? I'm sure advisers do. Is there anything unusual in Obama's approval number, other than the fact that it nearly doubles the rating his predecessor left office with? No, not really.

Indeed, the news media's ongoing hand-wringing about Obama's polling numbers and how he's only around 50 percent (it's "tepid" and cause for "worry") is rather odd considering former President Bush served nearly his entire second term with an approval rating below 50 percent and left the presidency with an almost incomprehensibly low 22 percent approval rating.

Also note that for the majority of Bush's first year in office (i.e. up until September 11, 2001), his approval rating remained pretty much exactly where Obama's has been since late last summer: hovering around 50 percent. But do you recall a media obsession about Bush's super-soft poll numbers back during the spring and summer of 2001?

Neither do I.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/201003170005

[uponit7771]

1. Buh...Buh....Obama is teh corporatist

[ShortnFiery]

2. Yeah, everything is fine ...

[NJmaverick]

5. You sound disappointed like you want the Democrats and our President to fail

[ShortnFiery]

8. Oh stop! Believe it our not, Our UNIVERSE does not revolve around Obama's poll ratings. eom

[NJmaverick]

11. I noticed you didn't actually address my comment

After all you could have disputed what I said or at least say that you hope our President and the party succeed, by you didn't. I find that telling.

[HughMoran]

9. that PerSon You Comment on Has a reputatiOn to uphold

;)

[NJmaverick]

3. I was exciting when I saw the headline. I thought that maybe the MSM was going to address the issue

sadly it's just a media watch dog group that cares about the facts, but doesn't have the ability to reach the general public.

[Jennicut]

4. It is essentially unchanged since December in the Gallup daily tracking poll.

Funny how Bush's went up when he failed to prevent a terrorist attack.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. I'm not sure I'll EVER understand THAT

I will concede that some of that increased popularity is due in part to people, including even Democrats, rallying around our POTUS, in the wake of the horrific tragedy of 9/11 and, at least for awhile I thought his administration were actually handling things o.k. in regards to Afghanistan/Taliban conflict (though much of what we did post-9/11 had been developed by Clarke under Clinton). It wasn't until more came out about how Bush was responding to terrorist threats PRIOR to 9/11, the invasion/occupation of Iraq failed to confirm the existence of WMDs, and it became known that our troops (almost certainly with a nudge and a wink from administration officials) were torturing inmates at Abu Gharib that his poll numbers started to recede from the dizzying heights prior to the 2004 election. I wonder how many people had "buyers remorse" after the 2004 election because his poll numbers sure went downhill FAST in 2005 and stayed in the toilet for the remainder of his (P)residency.

[Richardo]

6. "....good news is no news."

Those five words say it all, don't they?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. Exactly

As other people have pointed out, President Clinton's and even Reagan's numbers were even worse at this point in their presidencies amidst relatively decent economic circumstances. I also recall GWB's approval numbers being pretty flaccid until 9/11 happened. I was convinced, right up to 9/11, that he would be a one-termer like his daddy and I suspect that he probably would've been had 9/11 not happened and he and the Republicans hadn't been able to use 9/11 and the "war on terror" to spook (just barely) enough people into re-(s)electing him. The fact that Obama has, after enjoying an extended "honeymoon" (which the pundits were incredibly eager to end for months), averaged a majority approval-rating under pretty dire (but slowly improving) economic circumstances is pretty significant IMHO. Unfortunately, the corporate mediawhores seem to be holding their breath, for Obama's tragic downfall (though I think that they will turn blue and pass out before that happens).
Approval ratings aren't everything and I'm glad that Obama doesn't seem to be as poll-driven as some of our recent Presidents but it's at least comforting to know that the Republicans aren't gaining any traction (much to the consternation of the corporate mediawhores I'm sure).

[Supersedeas]

12. snapshots of 1000 people in the most conservative districts in AL, TX, and UT