Why are President Obama's approval ratings at a particular low ebb right now?

[Politics_Guy25]

Quite low lately. It's due mostly to Sherrod and the oil spill right? I bet if those two things hadn't happened, he'd be at 51% or 52%.

I really don't think it's the economy because the economy is getting better and the unemployment rate is getting better all the time.

Maybe once these two incidents fade into the public memory, he'll go back up? What do you think?

He's at a record low on average right now. I just noticed how low they have been lately today. Haven't looked at them in a while. I really do think it's the freak show that Mark Halperin talks about more than anything substantive really that has his approval down.

The freak show does matter a lot. The "lipstick on a pig" 2008 incident cost him 3-4 points in the polls. The economy crashing and Mccain's freakout got him past that.

[WI_DEM]

1. People are upset at politicians. Obama is more popular than anybody in the GOP

and Democratic leaders in the congress, but Obama's approval ratings won't really begin to build until unemployment begins to noticeably ease. 9.5% unemployment is still too high. The oil spill had some effect, but not as much as Karina did on Bush. Sharrod was a two-day story and I hardly hear anybody talking about it any more. When the facts came out--Obama handled it well.

[Politics_Guy25]

2. WI-Dem...

Why do you think the average American voter has so much more tolerance for GOP lies and corruption and crimes than they do for dems? It seems like the GOP can run roughshod for like 6 years before the voters start to care and if the dems step one foot out of line, they freak. And they have zero understanding of the mess that the GOP caused. None.

It's frustrating how the GOP gets away with so much more than we do. And voters are angry at politicans you say. I fail to see what Obama, Pelosi and Reid have done to deserve to have people mad at them at all.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

10. For two main reasons: (1) they paint themselves as morally superior,

so when they sin, people are more likely to give them a break because they deemed themselves the Party of Family Values; and (2) because Democrats themselves are too cowardly to expose and hold Republicans accountable for their crimes.

It's the same reason why Nancy took impeachment off the table. It's the same reason why the Obama administration refuses to investigate war crimes or do anything about KKKarl Rove.

It's the same reason why Democrats tend to lose elections; they allow the Republicans to set the terms of the debate with little or no *CONVINCING* push back. And, I swear, it is the most frustrating thing in the world trying to understand why most--not all--Democrats are so afraid to fight back forcibly.

...and when they do, they typically get branded as "wacky," "looney," or "emotional." Case in point: Andy Weiner, Alan Grayson, Denis Kucinich. When the few of us do fight back with passion and conviction, the other side--with help from Corporate Media--labels us "crazy" or "having a meltdown." No one ever challenges the facts or the substance of the argument; they attack the person.

Look at what happened to Howard Dean. That "scream" was his undoing. And Democrats didn't even stand up for him at all.

[moksha]

3. It's Obama's War:

Combine that with unemployment still near 10%. His Presidency is largely hurting for these reasons.

[Politics_Guy25]

4. Yet Bush had 200 GIs a month dying in Iraq in 2004

And the average voter didn't care.

[moksha]

5. They may have not cared in 2004, but they damn sure did in 2006.

In 2004, we were in just the first year of the Iraq War.

We are in year 9 of Afghanistan. And, it is getting exponentially worse.

[JVS]

16. It looks like the pitch for escallation didn't work.

[moksha]

17. And/or the escalation didn't work.

Either way, he shot himself, the Democratic Party and the country in our collective foots with the foolish escalation.

[WI_DEM]

20. but like Iraq, where we will be bringing troops home, if Obama keeps his promise

about bringing troops home from Afghanistan in 2011 he will be able to say to voters in 2012 that he wound down two wars and saved the country from depression.

[zipplewrath]

25. Um, what makes you think the war will be over in 2012

Biden said the draw down in July of 2011 could be as small as 2000 soldiers. How do they get from 90K or so down to zero by the election in 2012, much less by say June or something where he could actually campaign on it? He's down to 50K in Iraq and can't get them home before December of 2011. Truth is, everyone who has spoken on the issue from inside the administration has suggested 2014 at the earliest. Cameron came over and wanted assurance the British troops would be out by 2015. The COIN strategy that Patreaus is following would suggest we'd be there 'till 2020.

So I wonder how he'll be able to make any particular claims in Afghanistan, especially considering the state of the government there (or lack thereof).

[moksha]

28. When has he said the troops are coming home in 2011?

They are going to bring maybe 2,000 home in August of 2011. That, by no means, is bringing the troops home.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

6. Don't dismiss the economy so cavalierly.

People are still losing their jobs, people are still loosing their houses to foreclosure, people are still filing for bankruptcy, and millions of American can't find work.

If you think that is not having a huge impact how American's view Obama you're are nuts.

[laugle]

38. You are absolutely right!

It is and has always been about the economy/jobs. And don't forget about all the people who have been furloughed without pay and have seen their paychecks shrink!

This has been happening in many cities in my state of California. The truth is we cannot afford these wars.
We have two options: stay there forever; or get the hell out now! There really is no gray area.........

Remember Vietnam........

[impik]

7. People are stupid

[indepat]

8. GWB's policies, actions, and wars garnered him an approval rating in the teens(?) after eight years:

the question now is where BHO's ratings are going to be at election-time 2012 after having ratified an astoundingly incomprehensible number of junior's most reprehensible policies and actions, having passed a mostly Republican/insurance-company-enriching HCR, having retained an incomprehensible number of junior's minions in government assuring continuance of the same RW policies and actions, especially at Justice and MMS, and having not pursued prosecution of the vast known/suspected wrongdoing during the previous administration. :P

[AndyA]

9. There are many reasons for Obama's low numbers

1. He hasn't kept all of his promises. He told us to hold him accountable, and this is a way of doing it.

2. Health care with no public option isn't really reforming the health care industry.

3. Lack of job creation. Jobs, jobs, jobs, that's what we need to get the economy going again. Where are the jobs?

4. Where's the transparency we were promised?

5. Failure to hold Bushco accountable for its crimes. This makes Obama complicit in those crimes.

6. DADT...still waiting on that one...

7. REAL equality for gay people...still waiting on that one too...

8. Continued vain attempts at bipartisanship. You've wasted TOO MUCH time, Obama. Run over the GOP, they are not going to help you. You should have learned that by February 2009, but you still waste time on this. Get a clue.

9. Then there's this: http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/integration/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=226500202 Why do you suppose we're spending money to train people in other countries who are taking our jobs? Don't we need jobs in the U.S. right now? Why aren't we spending $22 million to create jobs here? :shrug:

10. And here's another reason: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-cope/the-crime-of-the-century_b_662971.html Are we now the United States of BP? Why is BP in control?

Those are just a few reasons.

Disclaimers: No, I am not a Republican because I'm not 100% in love with Obama. No, I do not think McSame/Palin would be better. Yes, I realize Obama has done many good things since taking office.

[damntexdem]

11. A number of reasons:

1) ongoing recession with high unemployment.
2) DLC influence inside his administration;
3) spineless Dems who have been timid about using the power they have;
4) Tea Party and GOP racism and lies; and especially
5) the Faux News and MSM echo chambers, spewing out RW garbage and ultra-conservative framing of issues.

[JimLCal]

12. Because whites have abandoned him

www.gallup.com/poll/141725/Blacks-Whites-Continue-Differ-Sharply-Obama.aspx

[totodeinhere]

22. 38% support among whites? That's scary. n/t

[Pirate Smile]

35. It is close to Clinton's numbers with whites at the same time.

We're still haunted by Angry White Males
There's something about a Democratic White House and Congress that brings out this ugliness

-snip-
Also indisputable is the gaping racial divide that has emerged when it comes to the public’s views of Obama. In his New York Times column this weekend, Charles Blow highlighted data from a recent Quinnipiac University poll that found 91 percent of blacks approve of Obama’s handling of the presidency, compared with just 37 percent of whites -- and that 87 percent of blacks would vote to reelect him in 2012, compared to a mere 28 percent of whites.

It’s tempting to connect poll results like this to the right’s race-based messaging and to wonder if America was really as ready for a black president as we liked to think it was back in 2008. So it’s probably worth remembering that a nearly identical divide also existed when the White House was occupied by a white Southerner who some called "Bubba."

When Bill Clinton came to office in 1993, he faced the same wall of reflexive Republican opposition that has bedeviled Obama. The GOP filibustered his stimulus plan to death, provided no help when he attacked the deficit (because his budget included tax hikes for the wealthy), and accused him of trying to engineer a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy with his healthcare reform plan. Sound at all familiar? Republicans also took every chance they could find to drive a wedge between Obama and working-class white voters -- gays in the military, Lani Guinier, a crime bill that included funding for inner-city midnight basketball programs, and so on.

It all produced, at this same point in Clinton’s presidency, a stark racial divide. In the 1994 midterm elections, when Republicans won control of the House and Senate, white voters favored the GOP by a 62 to 38 percent margin. Today, the spread is 50 to 31 percent, according to Quinnipiac’s most recent generic ballot test. Heading into the '94 midterms, Clinton’s approval rating with white male voters was around 20 percent -- and it measured in single digits in some deep South states. Hence, '94’s designation as the year of the Angry White Male.

Viewed in this context, the same basic ingredients that turned so many white voters against Clinton are at work with Obama. Remember that the first two years of Clinton’s presidency were the last time before now that a Democratic president enjoyed robust Democratic majorities in both congressional chambers. That concentration of power, combined with a still-shaky economy and Clinton’s advocacy of (some) culturally and economically progressive legislation, gave the right an opening to sow fear among whites of redistribution. Race was, obviously, a part of this (as the Guinier and midnight basketball examples showed), but the campaign was just as successful in 1994 with a white president as it has been in 2010 with a black president.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/02/obama_angry_white_males/index.html

[LAGC]

27. I'm kind of surprised Hispanic support is so low as well.

With Obama's intervention into the Arizona affair, I would have thought Hispanic support would be higher.

[laugle]

39. Not every

hispanic person thinks people should come here illegally. Many have worked hard and come here through legal means, as it should be, if our laws were really to be enforced. Stopping that law was purely political and people see through it.

[LAGC]

41. Well, I'm talking more about the racial profiling that that law entails.

It wouldn't just be illegal immigrants that would be targeted, many legal immigrants who happen to look Hispanic would be targeted by the law as well. That's the main reason the Feds sued in the first place, nevermind the fact that Arizona has no right to be dictating border policy, when its a Federal responsibility.

I would have just thought more Hispanics would be more supportive of Obama for his administration's intervention. I guess not.

[laugle]

44. You can believe that,

it's your choice, but, I see the larger political picture, and it's about votes.....the rest you can figure out I'm sure.........

You do realize that more than 20 other states are thinking about adopting the same or similar law.

One thing is for sure, this story is far from over. And I don't see the feds doing much to solve the problems, and that it self speaks volumes........

[LAGC]

45. I agree we need comprehensive FEDERAL immigration reform.

And I hope Obama and Congress (if it remains in Democratic hands) tackles it soon after the elections.

But those states passing those discriminatory laws aren't the answer. Not when it puts legal citizens in the cross-hairs.

[laugle]

46. Comprehensive is

code for Amnesty, is that what you mean? No disrespect to you, but I doubt that you have read the Arizona law, since your posts sound like talking points?

[LAGC]

47. I'm only going off of what the ACLU says about the law.

And it's none very good. What do you have against amnesty? Do you have a better idea of what to do with 20 million undocumented workers in this country? We certainly can't deport them all...

[BootinUp]

13. Its the economy s_ _ _ _d. nt

[opihimoimoi]

14. Its the MASSIVE GOPer Psyops brain washing the masses with anti Bama shit

[DrDan]

15. you are missing the boat by dismissing the economy

unemployment is not getting better - and may in fact get worse.

"On Tuesday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told ABC's Good Morning America that the country is still dealing with a "tough economy" and the 9.5 percent national unemployment rate will likely rise as discouraged, jobless Americans begin to re-enter the workforce."

http://www.examiner.com/x-33202-Newark-Unemployment-Examiner~y2010m8d3-Geithner-expects-unemployment-to-continue-to-rise

[DFLforever]

18. Economy and the recent discussion of race.

ANY spotlighting of race hurts this president, which the GOPers exploit to their advantage.

[smalll]

19. Don't know why, but you're right they continue to trend downward --

Obama has been underwater (more disapproval than approval) on Gallup Daily Tracking for almost two weeks solid now.

And take a look at the RealClearPolitics poll-of-polls chart. Ugly.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

[JoePhilly]

21. I can explain it ...

Ok ... you have about 40% of Americans, from the right, who oppose Obama on absolutely everything. They claim he is "going too far". Does not matter what the issue is, this group will OPPOSE Obama. So ~40% is the baseine for AGAINST. And they are basically the same people from the right.

Then ... you have about 10% of Americans on the left, who oppose Obama. They claim Obama is "not doing enough". Importantly, this 10% shifts around some depending on what the key "issue X" is this week, but its always there. Each week we have a new "issue X". And with that, some shift of the members of that 10% from the left who OPPOSE Obama.

You also have about 40% of Americans on the left who support Obama on most issues. Generally, they SUPPORT Obama. The recognize the obstruction he's up against. At times, they oppose him on "issue X", so you get some shifting between this group and the prior group.

That leaves 10% ... these folks are not paying any attention what so ever, and are swayed back and forth easily.

With that all said ... the media tends to take the 40% from the right and the 10% from the left who OPPOSE Obama and then claim that "50% of Americans OPPOSE Obama for going to far" ... they just lump them together. They compare that to the 40% who support him ... and the 10% who are easily swayed, lean to AGAINST Obama.

So ... even if that last group splits even ... you get 55% AGAINST Obama, 45% for ... and the press claims that 55% are against him for being too liberal.

They use our internal disagreements as a weapon against us.

[DFLforever]

23. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[JoePhilly]

24. Thanks ...

Every issue that comes up ... week after week, this is the model put forward by the media.

The right closes ranks publicly, and we Dems fight publicly. And the media uses that against us.

We should fight each other in the primaries ... scream and shout ... and then when the election comes, close ranks.

I have a sports analogy for this ... when you try out for a competitive sports team, you might make the team, or not. And then, if you make the team, you have to compete to be a starter. If you did not make the team, or did not become a starter ... you work harder. You don't stop supporting the team. Go home. If you are in the stands you cheer. If you sit the bench, when you get to go in the game ... you work hard for the team.

As a Philadelphia Eagles fan, I will argue with other Philly fans about the decision to trade McNabb, or various trades. But on game day, I want the players we put on the field to win.

Now obviously this analogy is very (overly perhaps) simplistic and invites flaming. No problem.

But if we think of all Democrats as a team who want to move in basically the same direction, while not always agreeing on priorities or tactics, or even player selection, I think we all still want to maintain movement in the overall direction.

And so, in polls, and when Dems go on TV ... tighten ranks. As a true Eagles fan, I can trash any decision they make, if a Cowboy's fan trashes them, it's go time.

[zipplewrath]

26. Like they need our disagreements

Without pointing out the problems with your numbers, the entertainment press that constantly plays games with these polls hardly needs our "internal disagreements" to put on their shows and print their newspapers. They can do that with just the numbers. Heck, they ingore them half the time anyway.

[marlakay]

29. I think its the war

most people have now realized there isn't a hope in hell like Vietnam of winning anything and they see how broke our country is. I think the majority of people want it to stop and soon and thought Obama would and he is going slow on it and we are all hearing rumors of it going on longer which has most people pissed. I think if he was real clear about still stopping it it might help.

[4lbs]

30. It's still about the economy and jobs. Reagan's approval ratings 18 months in was just 39%.

Obama is about 10 points higher now. Which is astonishing considering that Obama has had much more to deal with in the past 18 months than Reagan did.

Reagan, just like Obama, started with a high approval but dropped. Reagan's approval didn't go well above the 50s again until the recession fully subsided and jobs were being created at a steady pace.

I expect Obama's approval next summer to be around 55% once the economy gets back into full swing.

[Fearless]

31. Because some liberals will say the disapprove if they don't agree with policy decisions...

Thus the poll is VERY slanted. You have both conservatives, and some liberals, myself included, who do not like many of his policy decisions and who would then say they disapprove.

[JimLCal]

32. I don't think it's all about the economy

If his drop was only about the economy, you would see his support erode across all demographics. However, he has close to 90% support among blacks so that doesn't make any sense. As an earlier poster alluded to, there will always be 30% or so that are opposed to any progressive politician. Add in 10% that are unhappy about health mandates, the lack of attention to the environment, the wars, etc. then he's at 40%. A good 10% are from self-described progressives that are pissed off...either over DADT, environment, wars, corporate healthcare, etc. Those 10% fade in and fade out on their particular issue.

With respect to "independents" I firmly believe that the only issue that truly divides independents is that of illegal immigration. The media can try to inject race into every policy decision to their hearts are content, but at the end of the day, that yellow dog journalism doesn't hunt. However, so long as Obama stays away from amnesty/immigration, his poll numbers will get back to where they belong. Remember, he won with 52.9% of the vote, so that's his true core numbers. He isn't that far away.

But to get back on track, he has to gain what he has lost. He is losing the white vote because of immigration. 90% of republicans/conservatives are hardline on that issue. I would take a guess and say that 20% of democrats share a "secure the border first" mentality. Among white democrats, that might be closer to 30%. It is that divide that is hurting him.

[MikeW]

33. not quite

"I really don't think it's the economy because the economy is getting better and the unemployment rate is getting better all the time."

???? Really where do you live.

Millions out of work ... Id say thats driving quite a bit of it.

[golfguru]

34. 9.5% UNemployment n/t

[saltpoint]

36. He deserves the low ratings. He's an underhanded

secret Muslin socialist Manchurian terror-apologist demon.

Ann Coulter said so, so it must be true.

[laugle]

42. Hey, you

forgot born in Kenya.........lol.....

[saltpoint]

43. LOL!

:hi:

[woo me with science]

37. It's absolutely the economy.

The pain does not remain flat with the numbers. The longer people are out of work, the more their desperation escalates, and the more they feel utterly abandoned by this administration touting small improvements in a "jobless recovery."

Fix the economy, and nobody would be able to beat him.

[JVS]

40. That's a good point. Long term unemployment takes on a whole new level of pain.