posted
If you go to the Gallup Presidential Approval Center and click on the "Compare Presidents" tab, you can get a graphical display of Gallup's measured approval ratings for the 12 most recent Presidents.
I was curious which past Presidents' approval ratings most closely resembled Obama's. The three closest (based on visual evaluation, not really quantitative) are Clinton, Reagan and Carter. Depending on how you weight things, I think you could make a reasonable argument for any of those three.
The two Bushes have significantly different graphs, evidently due to the significant foreign policy events of their presidencies. Ford came into office under unique circumstances, Nixon's first-term was governed by Vietnam, Johnson's by Civil Rights, Kennedy's was cut short, Eisenhower was never unpopular, and Truman's approval ratings were infrequently sampled.
The interesting thing (to me) is that Obama, relative to Clinton, Reagan and Carter, is at a point of approval rating divergence. Up to about 800 days into their presidencies, Carter, Clinton and Reagan all had very similar approval ratings. But then Carter's tanked while Clinton's and Reagan's gradually improved. I don't see any exogenous events that would account for it, and I would guess its mostly a factor of perceptions of the economy (improving in the case of Reagan and Clinton, stagnating in the case of Carter).
So the question is, will Obama's approval rating follow Carter's into the low-30s, or Reagan and Clinton's into the low-50s (or will it chart a new path)? Based on what I can tell of public perceptions of the economy, I would guess Carter's. But I feel like Obama probably has more going for him (charismatically) than Carter did, so maybe not (he's actually already about 2 months past the point where Carter's numbers really started to nosedive, although he's been riding a temporary surge in popularity since early May due to the killing of bin Laden, which is now rapidly dissipating). Either way, the (admittedly sparse) historical record would indicate the next 100 days are pretty important.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I don't know what his approval rating will do, but I can just about promise you he'll get re-elected.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Huntsman could survive the primaries, I think he'd have a chance of taking Obama in the general election.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Statistically speaking, it is very difficult to take down a sitting president who's going up for re-election (obviously, it is still possible). People are familar with him, so they are unlikely to get behind a guy they hardly know or understand. Obama is still popular to a certain degree, especially with this whole "pull out the troops by 2013" thing and also the Bin Laden kill. It has reignited people's love for him, and just in time for elections.
I'm not saying I agree with his views or not, but I just think he will probably get re-elected.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that Obama's weaker than you think that he is. There's a very good chance, both because of the way the primary process works and because of a fairly weak pool of potential candidates, that the Republicans won't be able to field someone who can defeat him, but with a candidate who would appeal to the center, and that the far right would hold their nose and vote for simply to keep Obama from a second term (in much the way that a lot of us on the left will hold our noses and vote for Obama to keep the Republicans from taking the office), he could be defeated. From what I've seen of Huntsman, he's such a person. I'll be floored if he makes it through the primaries, though.
I also think that you're overestimating the attention span of the American electorate if you think that Obama will still be riding the bump he got from Bin Laden's assination by the time the election actually happens.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jake: I think that Obama's weaker than you think that he is. There's a very good chance, both because of the way the primary process works and because of a fairly weak pool of potential candidates, that the Republicans won't be able to field someone who can defeat him, but with a candidate who would appeal to the center, and that the far right would hold their nose and vote for simply to keep Obama from a second term (in much the way that a lot of us on the left will hold our noses and vote for Obama to keep the Republicans from taking the office), he could be defeated. From what I've seen of Huntsman, he's such a person. I'll be floored if he makes it through the primaries, though.
This is like saying that if things were different than the way they are, and the conservative core could vote for someone they aren't going to vote for, then Obama's position would be weaker than you would think it would be.
Not that I think it matters very much. As long as things continue pretty much as-is, Obama would even beat huntsman. There's more liberals than conservatives voting these days, and they're much better at holding their noses and voting for someone who has merely disappointed them, rather than a republican.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jake: I also think that you're overestimating the attention span of the American electorate if you think that Obama will still be riding the bump he got from Bin Laden's assination by the time the election actually happens.
I can't decide whether to say, "The bump he got from what?" or "I don't know what an assination is, but it sounds like it hurts." Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: As long as things continue pretty much as-is, Obama would even beat huntsman. There's more liberals than conservatives voting these days, and they're much better at holding their noses and voting for someone who has merely disappointed them, rather than a republican.
You keep saying stuff like this, with no apparent justification. I understand you'd like to make Obama's reelection seem inevitable but it really isn't. His favorable/unfavorable with independents is 42/49 and going in the wrong direction. And the age group his approval rating has dropped the most with is 18-34, which he were his core volunteer constituency last time around.
If things (meaning the economy) don't change (and it's really almost now or never; green shoots next Summer will be too late), and if the Republican candidate can appeal to independents (meaning its not Bachmann, Palin, Cain, or some other insurgent candidate), I'd say Obama will have less than 50/50 odds.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jake: I also think that you're overestimating the attention span of the American electorate if you think that Obama will still be riding the bump he got from Bin Laden's assination by the time the election actually happens.
I can't decide whether to say, "The bump he got from what?" or "I don't know what an assination is, but it sounds like it hurts."
:: laugh :: In my defense, I didn't get a lot of sleep last night.
And Porter, I laughed aloud at the buttination comment.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Jake: I think that Obama's weaker than you think that he is. There's a very good chance, both because of the way the primary process works and because of a fairly weak pool of potential candidates, that the Republicans won't be able to field someone who can defeat him, but with a candidate who would appeal to the center, and that the far right would hold their nose and vote for simply to keep Obama from a second term (in much the way that a lot of us on the left will hold our noses and vote for Obama to keep the Republicans from taking the office), he could be defeated. From what I've seen of Huntsman, he's such a person. I'll be floored if he makes it through the primaries, though.
This is like saying that if things were different than the way they are, and the conservative core could vote for someone they aren't going to vote for, then Obama's position would be weaker than you would think it would be.
I disagree, but I'm trying to do about 12 at once right now, and have been trying to make this post for about 20 minutes, only to get pulled away from it every 3 or 4 words or so. I'll talk about it more tomorrow, assuming that the conversation hasn't moved on, or the points I was going to make haven't already been made.
[Edit - Well, it's the next day, and the conversation hasn't moved on, but I'm finding that I don't actually care enough about the conversation to pick it back up.]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
