Obama Popularity Lags Bush

[Preston_79]

Newsmax.com

Poll: Obama Popularity Lags Bush After First Month

Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:32 PM

By: Dave Eberhart

The media may be smitten with President Barack Obama, but recent Gallup poll results show Americans giving the new president lower marks after one month in the White House than former President George W. Bush earned at the same point in his administration.

Heading into this week’s address to Congress, the Gallup figures showed 59 percent of Americans approved of Obama’s efforts so far, while 25 percent disapproved, and 16 percent had no opinion. According to PollingReport.com, President Bush had a 62 percent approval rating one month into his first term, with 21 percent disapproving, and 17 percent having no opinion.

“For the first time since Gallup began tracking Barack Obama’s presidential job approval rating on Jan. 21, fewer than 60 percent of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president,” the Gallup report reads. The drop below 60 percent approval was fueled largely by a drop in satisfaction among independents, Gallup pollsters added.

Late last week, polls showed 62 percent of independents approved of Obama, compared with 54 percent in the last three days, according to NewsBusters. Obama’s approval rating among Democrats has dipped slightly, while approval among Republicans has not changed significantly.

While it may be difficult to tell from the glowing media accounts of his fledgling administration, even Obama’s highest approval numbers were never all that special. Gary Langer, director of polling at ABC News reports that Obama’s early ratings are in line with the one-month of George H. W. Bush, John F. Kennedy, and even Jimmy Carter.

No big deal. It's by the smallest of margins. I can't even remember what Bush did in his first month.

[shoe1985]

During Bush's first year in office, he had an economy that was still quite strong after Clinton left. Yes, Bush entered office in a recession, but it is nothing like the recession he left office. I don't think it would matter who was in office right now, the current President would probably have a rating around the same as Obama. The real numbers will show in 4 years.

[Pentangeli]

During Bush's first year in office, he had an economy that was still quite strong after Clinton left. Yes, Bush entered office in a recession, but it is nothing like the recession he left office.

Sure, at face value. But it was Clinton's administration which enforced the lowering of credit standards. Clinton wont see the blame for the present economic turmoil, even though he played a major role. Of course Wall Street greed is also to blame, but we expect them to be greedy. Clinton's administration made devastating decisions, allowing those on Wall Street to take full advantage. Bush inherited a time bomb.

[shoe1985]

Sure, at face value. But it was Clinton's administration which enforced the lowering of credit standards. Clinton wont see the blame for the present economic turmoil, even though he played a major role. Of course Wall Street greed is also to blame, but we expect them to be greedy. Clinton's administration made devastating decisions, allowing those on Wall Street to take full advantage. Bush inherited a time bomb.

You could say that, or you could say that the economy was growing under Clinton, and to keep that growth going, you take the regulations off. You make changes to let it keep growing. Once the economy begins to slow down, which you could see happening during the Bush run, you put regulations back on, something nobody wanted because everyone was "doing well."

Bush had 8 years to fix these problems, he didn't. This is not just a housing problem though, but something much deeper. If we consider the differences between Clinton and Bush, the main thing I see is the job market. We had a very strong job market under Clinton, not so much under Bush.

A lot of these problems are from outsourcing of jobs. It is cheaper to make products overseas, many advantages too. But, the problems from this is that what happens to the workers here? Consider working in a factory making $20 an hour or more, then having your job get outsourced, and now you are making $10 at the new job. You just had your pay cut in half. You can't afford the house you live in now, or the bills you could at one time afford to pay.

I have read and heard people say it is from the free trade agreements, which I disagree with. The real problem lies in the greed of businesses. Instead of caring for employees, it has resulted in pleasing shareholders, or generating as much profit as possible. Now that we are now in a global economy, we are seeing that it is hard for us to compete. We lack the education to perform the jobs available. One of the news channels was showing how many industries are looking for help right now, but they can't find help because of the lack of education.

Instead of putting money into our education system to meet the demands for the workplace for today, we instead provide tax cuts for individuals that will continue to outsource jobs. We are seeing our infrastructure falling apart, and instead of fixing it, we want tax cuts. Obama is pushing for getting these things fixed, but for some reason people don't want this.

A company is looking to put in an ethanol plant in a town near where I live. People are saying they don't want it for different reasons, even though it could offer them many high paying jobs. This would also help push us towards renewable energy. We have a President trying to push us towards the future. Under Bush, we didn't get this.

[Bourne101]

Let us not forget, Bush's approval ratings were not always as bad as they were the past few years. After 9/11 his approval ratings were at about 90%. When the Iraq War began they were still over 75%, and when Saddam was captured they were at around 65%. So in his first 4 years his approval ratings were pretty darn good. Even through 2005 they were still hovering around 50%. So it's really only been 2006-2008 where his approval ratings were shit.

Obama will have his ups and downs in approval, like Bush, but there is absolutely no way to predict how Obama's approval ratings will be overall. I don't think they will ever reach the height that Bush received after 9/11, but again, there is no way to predict. Who knows, maybe Obama will do something to send approval ratings through the roof... or maybe he will be a terrible president. People need to stop assuming success or failure, and just wait and see over a longer period of time. Who knows, Obama's first 4 years could be shit, and then the following 4 years could be great. Or the first 4 years could be great, and the following 4 years could be shit. There's simply no way to know.

[Preston_79]

So his approval rating is lower than Bush's because of the economy, and not his actions? People aren't smart enough to know this crisis we're in isn't his fault?

By CALVIN WOODWARD and JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writers Calvin Woodward And Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writers – Wed Feb 25, 5:46 am ET

A look at some of his assertions:

OBAMA: "We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values."

THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money only goes to those who got in honest trouble, it hasn't said so.

Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it's important to save those who made bad calls, for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed.

"I think the smart way to deal with a situation like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about smoking in bed."

Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it's not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn't afford.

"I think it's just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans," Sheila Bair told National Public Radio.

___

OBAMA: "And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it."

THE FACTS: Depends what your definition of automobiles, is. According to the Library of Congress, the inventor of the first true automobile was probably Germany's Karl Benz, who created the first auto powered by an internal combustion gasoline engine, in 1885 or 1886. In the U.S., Charles Duryea tested what library researchers called the first successful gas-powered car in 1893. Nobody disputes that Henry Ford created the first assembly line that made cars affordable.

___

OBAMA: "We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before."

THE FACTS: Oil imports peaked in 2005 at just over 5 billion barrels, and have been declining slightly since. The figure in 2007 was 4.9 billion barrels, or about 58 percent of total consumption. The nation is on pace this year to import 4.7 billion barrels, and government projections are for imports to hold steady or decrease a bit over the next two decades.

___

OBAMA: "We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade."

THE FACTS: Although 10-year projections are common in government, they don't mean much. And at times, they are a way for a president to pass on the most painful steps to his successor, by putting off big tax increases or spending cuts until someone else is in the White House.

Obama only has a real say on spending during the four years of his term. He may not be president after that and he certainly won't be 10 years from now.

___

OBAMA: "Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day."

THE FACTS: This may be so, but it isn't only Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries. The Clinton administration championed an easing of banking regulations, including legislation that ended the barrier between regular banks and Wall Street banks. That led to a deregulation that kept regular banks under tight federal regulation but extended lax regulation of Wall Street banks. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the forefront in pushing for this deregulation.

___

OBAMA: "In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them. We'll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn't make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas."

THE FACTS: First, his budget does not accomplish any of that. It only proposes those steps. That's all a president can do, because control over spending rests with Congress. Obama's proposals here are a wish list and some items, including corporate tax increases and cuts in agricultural aid, will be a tough sale in Congress.

Second, waste, fraud and abuse are routinely targeted by presidents who later find that the savings realized seldom amount to significant sums. Programs that a president might consider wasteful have staunch defenders in Congress who have fought off similar efforts in the past.

___

OBAMA: "Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."

THE FACTS: While the president's stimulus package includes billions in aid for renewable energy and conservation, his goal is unlikely to be achieved through the recovery plan alone.

In 2007, the U.S. produced 8.4 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, including hydroelectric dams, solar panels and windmills. Under the status quo, the Energy Department says, it will take more than two decades to boost that figure to 12.5 percent.

If Obama is to achieve his much more ambitious goal, Congress would need to mandate it. That is the thrust of an energy bill that is expected to be introduced in coming weeks.

___

OBAMA: "Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs."

THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

The president's own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error."

Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation. The estimates are based on economic assumptions of how many jobs would be lost without the stimulus.

It's not like Obama isn't going to make mistakes like anyone else who would be President.

[Potter82]

So his approval rating is lower than Bush's because of the economy, and not his actions? People aren't smart enough to know this crisis we're in isn't his fault?

Short answer, many of them aren't. They lack a basic understanding of the concepts of correlation and causation.

Case in point the stock market. Many people who dislike Obama will try to pin the continually declining stock market on him despite the fact that the downward trend was well under way since September, they never stop to consider the fact that no matter who won or what he or she did, it still would have declined. Keep in mind many of these people always had a problem with Obama and will use whatever they can grasp on to to justify that dislike regardless of the logic behind it.

Oh and many people have no patience; it's as if some people expect him to magically fix severe structural problems in the economy that have been buliding for decades in a single month.

I wouldn't worry, there will always be 20-30% of people who will never approve of anything he does. Keep in mind many of these people think Sarah Palin is the second coming so I wouldn't take them too seriously.

[shoe1985]

Potter82 summed it all up with what I was going to say. Like the last comment on Palin, without the oil profits in Alaska, the way it sounds, she wouldn't have any clue what to do without this revenue stream.

I heard one guy saying all of the problems we are facing today are because of Obama. These things don't start overnight. The stock market does not like Obama's policies because they will impact the people behind the market. But, the economy has been headed in this direction for many years.

A lot of people thought Obama would come in and every problem solved, as Potter said. There isn't a simple fix it. Saying here is a tax cut won't solve the problems we are facing. There are still major scandals coming out from the financial sector. If people listened to McCain and company when they said look at these sectors, we might not be in this spot now. If they did the same thing when Obama and company said the same thing a few years later, we might not be in this spot now. Instead, people saw profits, and could have cared less where they were coming from.

[The Postmaster General]

Obama's tax rebates lags Bush's

[screamer581]

For what it's worth, Gallup's poll is by far the lowest ratings I have seen for Obama. Real Clear Politics has him at about 64%, and I have seen many other polls much higher than that. Regardless, it doesn't matter in the slightest this early in his presidency.

[Potter82]

Today’s Gallup Poll:

Gallup says President Obama's approval rating today is 67%, up from 59% on Tuesday.

Gallup attributes the week's improvement to Obama's address to Congress Tuesday night and a sharp rebound among Republicans, from 27% approval to 42%.

The latest rating is based on polling conducted Tuesday through Thursday.

----

my people are fickle aren't they?

also doesn't it seem a bit ridiculous to keep doing this poll every few days? wouldn't it make much more sense to do them at monthly or bi-monthly intervals? you know, in order to give people a chance to form an opinon after some reflection as oppposed to taking into account their immediate reactions - especially since so many things are happening so quickly? take the last few days; Obama announced his troop withdrawal plan from Iraq, released his budget, his attorney general ordered the DEA to cease raids on medical marijuana, and his administration announced that they would end the conscience protections for health care workers enacted under the Bush admin (which gave legal protections for say pharmascists who declined to prescribed birth control due to their religious beliefs, a ridiculous policy if there ever was one).

I mean seriously, Gallup and other polling places should really calm down on this constant polling. Are they having election withdrawal or something?

[shoe1985]

I agree, Potter82. I don't pay much attention to polls for the reasons you listed. Opinions will differ everyday.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

People weren't really thinking about the presidency during the first nine months of Bush's presidency. The 59% of people polled in that survey are probably more fond of Obama's job performance than the 62% who approved of Bush. Plus, Obama is pushing a huge stimulus package that people are more than likely going to be divided on (even though most Americans want it).

[The Heart Collector]

Sure, at face value. But it was Clinton's administration which enforced the lowering of credit standards. Clinton wont see the blame for the present economic turmoil, even though he played a major role. Of course Wall Street greed is also to blame, but we expect them to be greedy. Clinton's administration made devastating decisions, allowing those on Wall Street to take full advantage. Bush inherited a time bomb.

Bush did not inherit a time bomb.

The "bomb" blew up six-seven years after he became President.

It wasn't even a "bomb" during part of his presidency.

He "inherited" a "time bomb" in the sense that he (and the entire political establishment) were utterly retarded and pursued their idiotic policies fully.

[Badbird]

I saw Tom Delay actually try to blame the economic meltdown on Bill Clinton today. Mindboggling.

Anyway, daily/weekly popularity polls are pretty much the stupidest thing ever.

[Potter82]

This is why polls are stupid.

Last week; Obama's popularity lags Bush (he was at 59%)

This week: Obama's popularity at all time high of 68%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493021/


Daily tracking polls make as much sense as the stock market in my opinion

[Potter82]

I saw Tom Delay actually try to blame the economic meltdown on Bill Clinton today. Mindboggling.

Anyway, daily/weekly popularity polls are pretty much the stupidest thing ever.

really? because I thought it was Barney Frank and Chris Todd's fault and that this whole mess started only 2 years ago when the Dems took over congress. I guess I was wrong, damn Clinton and Obama - nevermind the guy who held the office for the 8 years in between or the 6 years the GOP controlled congress and the fact that until recently the dems only had a bare, bare majority in the House and the Senate - obviously everything was fine during this time, nothing happened, we had a party and they served punch and everyone was happy!!

I can't hear you lalalala

*sigh, why can't the democrats be like the GOP and take responsibility for their screw ups without blaming everyone else?... oh wait

[Badbird]

And you just know that when the economy does recover, they will somehow give credit to Ronald Reagan for saving us all.

[Crazy Dud]

Bush did not inherit a time bomb.

The "bomb" blew up six-seven years after he became President.

It wasn't even a "bomb" during part of his presidency.

He "inherited" a "time bomb" in the sense that he (and the entire political establishment) were utterly retarded and pursued their idiotic policies fully.

Six years after Bush's presidency began would be the same time we switched from Republican majority to a Democrat majority in Congress.

Now, I'm not saying that's the reason the economy fell apart, but it is an observation that I think could be looked into and considered. I mean, the timing, HC, is pretty much perfect.

(Remember, I'm not saying I think that's why things are the way they are.)

[shoe1985]

Six years after Bush's presidency began would be the same time we switched from Republican majority to a Democrat majority in Congress.

Now, I'm not saying that's the reason the economy fell apart, but it is an observation that I think could be looked into and considered. I mean, the timing, HC, is pretty much perfect.

(Remember, I'm not saying I think that's why things are the way they are.)

This crisis has been building for a long time. You know that bubble you always hear about? Well, that bubble got so big, and when people discovered how the financial institutes were doing their practices, well, it popped. The housing crisis was going to happen sooner or later. It just happened sooner.

The biggest issue is these institutes were not regulated, allowing for these credit default swaps and other derivatives to grow out of control. Which should have happened during the Republican Congress, they had enough support to do it, but it goes against their ways.

This crisis has so many variables to it, and it was not the result of one thing. Democrats came into office with many problems they probably didn't expect. And when Republicans take over again, it will happen, they will inherit many problems too. Or at least what they feel are problems and goes against their way of politics.

[darchangel]

Short answer, many of them aren't. They lack a basic understanding of the concepts of correlation and causation.

Case in point the stock market. Many people who dislike Obama will try to pin the continually declining stock market on him despite the fact that the downward trend was well under way since September, they never stop to consider the fact that no matter who won or what he or she did, it still would have declined. Keep in mind many of these people always had a problem with Obama and will use whatever they can grasp on to to justify that dislike regardless of the logic behind it.

Oh and many people have no patience; it's as if some people expect him to magically fix severe structural problems in the economy that have been buliding for decades in a single month.

I wouldn't worry, there will always be 20-30% of people who will never approve of anything he does. Keep in mind many of these people think Sarah Palin is the second coming so I wouldn't take them too seriously.


What s/he said.

[Potter82]

This crisis has been building for a long time. You know that bubble you always hear about? Well, that bubble got so big, and when people discovered how the financial institutes were doing their practices, well, it popped. The housing crisis was going to happen sooner or later. It just happened sooner.

The biggest issue is these institutes were not regulated, allowing for these credit default swaps and other derivatives to grow out of control. Which should have happened during the Republican Congress, they had enough support to do it, but it goes against their ways.

This crisis has so many variables to it, and it was not the result of one thing. Democrats came into office with many problems they probably didn't expect. And when Republicans take over again, it will happen, they will inherit many problems too. Or at least what they feel are problems and goes against their way of politics.

Seconded. Although I don't know if you can name a precise date, this financial crisis has it roots in the 90s, when the Clinton Administration and Republican controlled congress deregulated much of the financial industry which laid the foundation for the rise of financial instruments like credit-default swaps, the rise of adjustable rate mortgages, and executive pay which put an incentive on excessive risk taking, etc. The fact is that both political parties share some blame over this though I supposed it's up for debate who deserves the most or least blame (I personally tend to blame the Republicans more since they are against government regulations as a matter of party ideology).

[The Postmaster General]

It's funny I've heard pretty much every one of my conservative friends bitch about the money Obama's stimulus plan puts into increasing their pay check (as opposed to one check) when in reality it's pretty comparable - Obama's being slightly lower, but again it depends on your state - people in DC have a higher cost of living than those in FLA, so no duh it's not exactly sensical to give out even cuts.