« No Surprise: Government Coerced B of A to Acquire Merrill | Gettysburg's Blog | Using Reconciliation Is Politics, Not Leadership »
Gallup Poll: Obama's Approval Rating Lowest Of Any President After 1 Year
Conclusions should not be drawn from poll numbers. But if the recent Gallup Poll is any indication as to the thoughts of the United States electorate, the Obama administration had better pay attention.
The newest poll shows Obama's approval rating at 47%. According to the report on the Fox News website (yes, they even have a web page to compliment their illustrious news network), the most recent Gallup poll was conducted on December 4-6.
In the history of the Gallup Poll, which began in 1938, this is the lowest approval rating for any president after only 1 year in office. Here is the list of presidential approval ratings after 1 year in office:
-- Barack Obama, 47 percent
-- George W. Bush, 86 percent
-- Bill Clinton, 52 percent
-- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent
-- Ronald Reagan, 49 percent
-- Jimmy Carter, 57 percent
-- Gerald Ford, 52 percent
-- Richard Nixon, 59 percent
-- Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent
-- John Kennedy, 77 percent
-- Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent
-- Harry Truman, 49 percent
Things are not looking promising for the Democrats. Their strategy of shutting out the Republicans in the health care debate backfired swiftly yesterday when the so-called Senate Majority Leader, Harry (I'm about to lose my re-election bid) Reid suggested that the Republicans opposing this bill are probably the same type of people who would have fought against the abolition of slavery. Apparently Mr. Reid has never heard the term, "Party of Lincoln." If the Republican tactics continue to irritate the uncompromising Democrats, I'm sure we'll hear a Nazi reference before too long.
Of course, it would help if the proposed legislation wasn't comprised of over 2,000 pages; much of it merely ink that nobody in the Senate Chamber has laid eyes on.
The newest poll shows Obama's approval rating at 47%. According to the report on the Fox News website (yes, they even have a web page to compliment their illustrious news network), the most recent Gallup poll was conducted on December 4-6.
In the history of the Gallup Poll, which began in 1938, this is the lowest approval rating for any president after only 1 year in office. Here is the list of presidential approval ratings after 1 year in office:
-- Barack Obama, 47 percent
-- George W. Bush, 86 percent
-- Bill Clinton, 52 percent
-- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent
-- Ronald Reagan, 49 percent
-- Jimmy Carter, 57 percent
-- Gerald Ford, 52 percent
-- Richard Nixon, 59 percent
-- Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent
-- John Kennedy, 77 percent
-- Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent
-- Harry Truman, 49 percent
Things are not looking promising for the Democrats. Their strategy of shutting out the Republicans in the health care debate backfired swiftly yesterday when the so-called Senate Majority Leader, Harry (I'm about to lose my re-election bid) Reid suggested that the Republicans opposing this bill are probably the same type of people who would have fought against the abolition of slavery. Apparently Mr. Reid has never heard the term, "Party of Lincoln." If the Republican tactics continue to irritate the uncompromising Democrats, I'm sure we'll hear a Nazi reference before too long.
Of course, it would help if the proposed legislation wasn't comprised of over 2,000 pages; much of it merely ink that nobody in the Senate Chamber has laid eyes on.
Advertisement
Your a day late. Obama's approvals are back at 50%. And let's not forget what got Bush's up to 86% in his first year.
December 8, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you are late.
Mikulski has already made the Nazi references against the insurance companies (and by extension, their cronies Rethuglicans).
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/mikulski-invokes-nazi-germany-to-describe-some-insurance-company-practices.php?ref=fpblg
December 8, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans decided their best way to destroy the adminstration was to block ANY healthcare bill. There is no possible compromise with the Repubicans because their one and only goal is defeating ANY bill. Unfortunately, the Democrats only goal is passing ANY bill. We no longer have ANY party that is working to put the interests of Americans first. Until we do, compromise is a farce because the motivation to compromise, i.e., serving the public good, does not exist.
December 8, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
December 8, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bluebell,
I think you're partly right, but I would argue that the current goal of the GOP is to kill Harry Reid's bill as it's currently written. If they can prevent Reid from getting 60 votes, he'll have to go back to the drawing board and start anew. At that point it would have to be a bi-partisan effort and you'd see the GOP make an earnest effort at contribution.
The one thing the Democrats have done well (better than in 1993/94 at any rate)is hammer home the necessity for health care reform. Almost every poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans favor reform. I do think it's at a point where there WILL be reform come hell or high water. Consequently, the GOP's overall strategy cannot be to kill ANY bill. Even they must have come to the realization that there will be some kind of reform. They just don't want it to be Reid's bill or Pelosi's bill.
I do agree with you that neither party is doing its job. Hell, the Republicans can't even agree on what it means to be Republican. About the only 2 things they agree on is to, a. railroad the administration wherever and whenever possible, and b. make sure they kill the Reid bill. The Dems, on the other hand, were barely able to muster the 60 necessary votes to get Reid's bill to the Senate floor for debate. That's not a good sign.
My biggest question is: what happens when the GOP wins big in next year's elections (and perhaps even in 2012) without having any party unity? Are there going to be droves of Republican Congressman and Senators that are all at bat for different teams and different agendas? I'm fairly disappointed that the MSM has blatantly shied away from reporting on this Republican schism. Whenever I mention it to people who are not particularly interested in politics they look at me with a blank stare. They have no idea that the GOP isn't really the GOP. That's scary because these people have votes!
December 8, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The lunatics have taken over the Republican party. Grassley did not act in good faith on the health bill and he would have at one time. He didn't because you can't act in good faith towards the other side and survive politically.
I think we need two new parties. I agree more with the old-fashioned Main Street Republican who shares my office than I do with those corporate whores who call themselves "centrists". They are not acting in good faith. They're not trying to help small business or do anything moderate. They're just bought.
The system is broken. The country is going to become ungovernable because it is no longer responding to the real needs of the people. It's off fighting wars in the most God forsaken places on earth while the potential terrorists who have the education, connections and money to do us damage are probably working in professional jobs in western cities. The government makes deals with financial players and corporate officers who have no loyalty to the US at all. They are looting the American middle class and the government treasury.
Democrats are likely to lose because they can't even pretend to be populists anymore. The Republicans still know how to pretend.
December 8, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd definitely take two new parties. The "Tea Party" talk obviously means that any third party would have to come from a disintegration of the GOP; but why stop there? Like you say, Bluebell, the Democrats can't even pretend to be populists anymore and the Republicans can't even pretend to be unified in voice or direction. And if their "purity tests" say anything, it's that their views and values are indeed that of main street.
Err, main street Decatur, Georgia that is.
Evolving as a society should not be seen as a bad thing. The two party system is obviously dead. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, this should really become obvious next year after the Republicans make congressional gains. You'll probably see a mixed bag of "ideologically pure" Republicans, probably a few overly-religious Republicans, definitely some fiscal conservatives, and maybe even a closet Neocon or two.
Republican In Name Only means we're going to need a bigger boat.
December 9, 2009 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
this is silliness. Obama is up to fifty, one ahead of reagan. Carter was ahead of both of them.
means nothing as to the prospects of 2010 elections let alone 2012
December 8, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gallup Poll?
Why not use Rasmussen's Daily Presidential Tracking Poll? It's sure to stay below 50 percent.
Gallup also shows:
In this day and age, if the president isn't pissing off half the population, he ain't doing his job.
~OGD~
December 8, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, just curious which part of "after 1 year in office" is tripping you up. (Hint: can you say "January 20"? I knew you could!)
December 9, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mentioned in an earlier post, this should really become obvious next year after the Republicans make congressional gains. You'll probably see a mixed bag of "ideologically pure" Republicans, probably a few overly-religious Republicans, definitely some fiscal conservatives, and maybe even a closet Neocon or two.
kamagra
yellowgold
July 5, 2010 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The hype as faded, its way lower now.
scented rocks
scented stones
September 6, 2010 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink