POLLS: Recent Presidents' First Year

[avaistheone1]

The table shows the approval ratings for Obama and the previous six presidents at the same point in their presidency.
http://prorev.com/2009/12/polls-recent-presidents-first-year.html


Currently Obama has the lowest approval ratings, and the highest disapproval ratings of any president since 1975.
Looks like strategies like catering to Wall Street, uneven support for the public oprion, and not working with
progressives have not been winning strategies for President Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

1. We are in the worse times since the great depression,

so going back to 1975 is constructive.

But we are after all in the middle of a primary, right? :shrug:

[avaistheone1]

2. I think it is both constructive and instructive if Obama wants to see Democrats

win in their races in 2010. It certainly will be easier for Obama to govern if he has a Democratic Senate and Congress. No?

Recall recent history when republican congressional contenders did not want to be affiliated with GW Bush when they were running in 2008, because association with Bush policies was the kiss of death for their campaigns given how Bush was polling so poorly.

[FrenchieCat]

3. I think it would be to our own best interest

to want to see Democrats win their races in 2010.....
instead of acting like we are going to will them out of there,
so we can "SHOW" us.

[mikekohr]

4. The last election's results will be repeated in 2012

The 46% disapproval of President Obama is what McCain/Palin got in '08. The nation is as divided along partisan lines as it has been since the 1860's. Nothing has changed except that the President's numbers have slipped a little among whites and a bit more in the South. President Obama is well above 52% in the East, the West and the Midwest. That's a repeat of 2008 and offers no reasonable path to 270 electoral votes for the Republican candidate in 2012.

Do not assume the conventional wisdom of the party in power losing significant numbers of seats in the off year elections. That thinking does not take into account today's reality of the Republican Party having a 21% self identification record among registered voters.

At this point I see 12-15 seats vulnerable in the House and 2-3 in the Senate although I can envision losing zero in the Senate as well.

mike kohr

[rufus dog]

16. Asshole!

Who do you think you are? An under 1000 poster coming to DU and being positive about Democrats chances.

BTW, I think you may be just a smidgen light on the house seats, maybe another five. Senate is good estimate at this time.

[mikekohr]

18. That's Mr. Asshole to You

:D

I could see up to 20 House seats lost but only because this will be an off year election and turnout will be low. When 2012 rolls around, turnout will rebound and Democrats almost always due well in higher turnout years. Combine that with the abysmal identification numbers that are corroding the Republican brand right now and I can not rule out a surprisingly good off-year election result for the party in power.

Mark my word, short of utter foul up by President Obama (which is not in his character or record) and 2012 will be a replay of 2008,
46% for the Republican lamb, 53% for President Obama and +330 electoral votes in the President's back pocket. The Republican Party/Tea Party People are so obsessed with idealogical purity that they can not recognize the deep South corner they are painting their selves into.

mike kohr

[jefferson_dem]

5. Obama is at 51 in Gallup now. He is better than Raygun who was at 49% at this point...

and went on to a landslide victory in 1984. Same thing will happen in 2012 (much to your chagrin). It will be "morning again in America" as the incumbent president easily wins re-election. Sorry.

"Undernews"? WTF. Scraping the bottom of the barrel, eh?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. Clinton and Reagan are also in that territory. I remember the crushing defeat each faced in the

polls.

Carter and HW Bush had a relatively high approval rating and we all remember how those guys were reelected in a landslide.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

7. Also, the source of that chart says that Obama is actually within MOE with Reagan, Clinton and Ford.

"Obama's current approval is within a cluster that has Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan all within the margin of error at the same point in their first terms."


Darn...that talking point was cool though.

[phleshdef]

8. Wrong on every point. He is above Reagan and generally the same as 3 Pres with MOE.

[MadBadger]

9. Reagan's approval was also 49%.

Reagan had the second highest disapproval with 41%. Remind me how that turned out?

[Arkana]

10. Bush does not count because 9/11 bailed his ass out.

[phleshdef]

11. This is true. He had virtually the whole country standing behind him before he threw it all away.

[Arkana]

13. Check his graphs--Bush's ratings were plummeting before 9/11--he was easily mid 40s and falling

until those planes hit the Trade towers.

[jenmito]

12. Obama 12/15-12/17-52% approval, 40% disapproval:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
But I guess any site can choose any days they want to get the desired results. Looks like the article's author chose the highest approval of the approximate time for Reagan and Clinton. :eyes:

[jenmito]

14. Someone posted this same article, but from Faux's website.

It was debunked.

[timeforpeace]

15. Bush counts when we want him to, and doesn't when we don't. He's the ultimate patsy.

[Blasphemer]

17. I don't think it's fair to compare

There are too many variables at play. As mentioned above, Bush's pre-9/11 approval ratings would be a better comparison point. Still, with him hanging around 50% the past few weeks, that puts him on par with Clinton and Reagan which makes sense. I didn't realize that George Bush Sr. was that popular circa 1989.

[Robbins]

19. Obama

He Is hovering In the early 50's In approval.Obama's disapproval never goes higher than 46 percent.
Which Is what Mccain got In 2008.Many may disagree about the surge In Afghanstain and sellout In
Health care.Obama Is in better shape than Clinton was.And In some polls Is slightly higher than
the media saint Reagan was at this time In 1981.

There are generic ballets that sugest Democrats can keep the congress In 2010.Although this depends on
Democrats getting out to vote.A major problem Is getting Obama voters out for a midterm election.2012
will be 1984 or 1996 revisted with the Incumbent easily winning.Democrats will keep the senate.For
Republicans to take the senate they would need to pick up 11 seats or pick up 10 and Lieberman defects
over to them.Even In 2008 we didn't win that many.I agree with Howard Dean the Democrats will be around
55 or slightly higher In 2011.Democrats will likely lose 20 to 25 seats In the House.In the South
some Democrats from Mccain districts will be voted out.Polls show the South Is the region that Is
negative to Obama while the Northeast,Midwest,and west are the favorable regions for him.Both Ron Kirk
In Illinois,and Mike Castle In Delaware are running for the senate In Obama states and they contsently
vote against anything he purposes.When the watered down helath care bill comes up In the House they will vote against that.And If Republicans could take the House In 2010,I am not saying they will just
throwing It out here,they will Insure Obama's relection.Gingrich as Speaker helped reelect Clinton.
The party of Palin,Teabagers,Birthers,and No In control of the House will remind everyone why they
voted for Obama and the Democrats In the first place.

Obama has a 77 percent approval with Hispanics.This means come 2012 any state with a large hispanic
population can be In play(hello Arizona as a battleground state) and he could end up trading
NC and Indiana for Missouri and eather Arizona or Montana.And with huge approval among those 18-49
means the future could be bad for Republicans.They could have decent 2010 but 2012 and beyond could be
bad for them.Especilly since they are driving out true moderates from the Republican party.

[uponit7771]

20. ******Obamas RCP Avg Higher than RayGuns not counting rAssMussen******

[RoadRage]

21. Are we going to compare what the past 6 presidents have actually ACCOMPLISHED?

Seriously.. aside from watching 2 buildings and 3 airplanes explode.. what exactly did Bush do in his first year? Certainly no hard work to actually accomplish anything.

Obama on the other hand has pushed through Healthcare Reform, and the largest stimulus package ever seen. Those 2 items alone happen to be pretty polarizing.. so by actually "DOING STUFF" you do tend to piss off people who don't agree with what you're doing.. or who think you've done too much or too little... gone too fast or too slow... etc.

The irony is that he's basically pissed off those on the far right who want NO Government involvement, and those on the far left who want MORE Government involvement (Public Option, etc.). Which means that the middle 50% is happy with the guy. You go further to the left, then all of the right and more independents hate him. You go more to the right and more of the left, and left leaning independants hate him.

This country is so friggin polarized right now, that you're only going to get about 48% - 55% who agree with your policies. At least he's trying to do something.. and walking the middle although it pisses off 75% of this baord is probably the only way he keeps his job.