The Truth Behind Obama’s Approval Ratings
Historically, Obama’s lowest ratings are higher than the lowest of any President since John F. Kennedy. That’s right. At Saint Ronnie Reagan’s lowest, he was at just 35 percent. George W. Bush once hit 19 percent.
Back to the present, Congress has an approval rating of below 13 percent, yet somehow, it’s Obama’s approval ratings, at more than triple that, that makes headlines and makes congressional candidates turn tail and run.
And they have been steady all year:
According to the cumulative ratings posted daily at Real Clear Politics, which averages together an array of national polls to come up with Obama’s composite job approval rating, the president’s approval on January 1, 2014 stood at 42.6 percent. The president’s approval rating on October 30, was 42 percent. So over the course of ten months, and based on more than one hundred poll results in 2014, Obama’s approval rating declined less than one point.
One point.
I can safely say Obama is only president in U.S. history whose approval rating dropped a single digit over a ten-month stretch and it was described as having “plummeted.”
None of this is to say the President has had a great year. He hasn’t. But a burden to his party? Not so much.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Stuart Shapiro
Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.
44 responses to The Truth Behind Obama’s Approval Ratings
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
OldLefty November 4th, 2014 at 07:37
Thank you, Stuart,
I may also add, that about 2 weeks ago, Washington Post-ABC ran with the headline; Obama, Lowest Approval Rating of his Presidency, while you can go back and look at the polling history and see that he was lower twice before he was re-elected.
Reuters has; “Republicans poised to ride Obama’s unpopularity to gains in
U.S. elections”
Obama’s approval is at 42%
Democrats in Congress are at 29% approval and 60% disapproval.
Republicans in Congress are at 21% approval and at 69% disapproval.
It would be more accurate to say that out of 36 Senate seats open, over half, (23) are in Republican states, (which is why they said 2014 would be a Republican year even before the 2012 election), and 4 Democrats are retiring from red states.
Also, the party who lost the last presidential election historically turns out more of their voters in the mid terms.
So I would hardly call that ” riding Obama’s unpopularity”, when he is more popular than any of them, and his party is more popular than the Republicans.
Also, sadly you can track the approval of Congress in general and the approval of Republicans in Congress specifically has steadily declined after the Republicans took over the House.
Tell me, a few of the most telling polls were;
~ Aug 12, 2010 CBS:
More Americans think Obama, Not Bush, Enacted Bank
Bailouts, Poll Shows
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-americans-think-obama-not-bush-enacted-bank-bailouts-poll-shows/
~ Oct 28, 2010 Bloomberg
The poll finds Republicans in an unusual position: on the brink of making political gains while the party and its policies are unpopular. Likely voters are evenly divided on the Republican Party, with 47 percent holding a positive opinion.
In a cautionary note, voters overwhelmingly say they don’t want a Republican
takeover to result in gridlock in Congress. Four-fifths say they want Republicans and Democrats to work together to get things done, as opposed to rigidly sticking to principles.”
Less than one-third of poll respondents — 31 percent — say they support cutting
federal spending in areas such as education and health care, excluding Social
Security, Medicare and defense.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2065100&sid=ag.hSPwmN4Vk
Then….
~ 10/28/10 8:09 AM EDT
John Boehner: ‘We will not compromise’
Was it any surprise that;
~December 9, 2010
Voters Say Election Full of Misleading and False Information
Poll Also Finds Voters Were Misinformed on Key Issues
World Public Opinion
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php
And
~ Oct 28, 2011 Fox News poll: Majority favors Obama’s jobs plan and faults GOP for blocking it
~ Nov. 7, 2011 Washington Post
Post/ABC survey: “50% think GOP intentionally stalling economy, including 51% of Indies, & 15% of GOPers.
Mike Butkus Jr. November 4th, 2014 at 09:37
So the big question for me is, why are the democrats reluctant in using this info and drive it down the Republicans throat? I don’t get it? Its very frustrating to watch.
Suzanne McFly November 4th, 2014 at 11:32
Exactly, lower employment numbers, stock market is booming, Osama is dead, no one has attacked us on our soil….it amazes me this isn’t seen as outstanding job Obama is doing.
Spirit of America November 5th, 2014 at 01:29
“no one has attacked us on our soil.”
2009 Fort hood, killing 13 wounding 30+
2009 little rock
2009 Underwear bomber
2010 times square
2013 boston
OldLefty November 4th, 2014 at 11:33
I think it depends upon the electorate.
I believe, (strictly my opinion, based on personal experience), that even if Allison Lundergan Grimes would shout from the rooftops and PROVE that ‘You Kentuckians who LOVE your Kynect, have the DEMOCRATIC House, and the DEMOCRATIC Senate and the DEMOCRATIC President and your DEMOCRATIC governor to thank. You have the REPUBLICAN House reps and REPUBLICAN senators and REPUBLICAN Mitch McConnell for getting in the way and trying to nix it.’, they would only resent her for confronting her with an uncomfortable truth and vote for McConnell.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker November 4th, 2014 at 20:07
Maybe, but she didn’t run on any Democratic successes, issues accomplishments or policies. She sold out and is now a loser for her stupidity and lack of willingness to fight for progressive causes.
OldLefty November 4th, 2014 at 20:46
I doubt if that would have helped her in a state that hangs onto this kind of cognitive dissonance.
Remember, McConnell also she didn’t run on any REPUBLICAN successes, issues accomplishments or policies. He sold out by saying he would repeal “Obamacare”, but not KyNect and is now a winner for his duplicity and lack of willingness to fight for ANY causes.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker November 4th, 2014 at 20:56
Yup, that’s how they win…..playing on fear, anger, lies and superstition.
OldLefty November 4th, 2014 at 21:24
But they need voters who are receptive to fear, anger, lies and superstition.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker November 4th, 2014 at 21:35
Ignorant, uneducated and racist also helps, so that’s why the hillbilly states are prime pickin’.
OldLefty November 4th, 2014 at 08:37
Thank you, Stuart,
I may also add, that about 2 weeks ago, Washington Post-ABC ran with the headline; Obama, Lowest Approval Rating of his Presidency, while you can go back and look at the polling history and see that he was lower twice before he was re-elected.
Reuters has; “Republicans poised to ride Obama’s unpopularity to gains in
U.S. elections”
Obama’s approval is at 42%
Democrats in Congress are at 29% approval and 60% disapproval.
Republicans in Congress are at 21% approval and at 69% disapproval.
It would be more accurate to say that out of 36 Senate seats open, over half, (23) are in Republican states, (which is why they said 2014 would be a Republican year even before the 2012 election), and 4 Democrats are retiring from red states.
Also, the party who lost the last presidential election historically turns out more of their voters in the mid terms.
So I would hardly call that ” riding Obama’s unpopularity”, when he is more popular than any of them, and his party is more popular than the Republicans.
Also, sadly you can track the approval of Congress in general and the approval of Republicans in Congress specifically has steadily declined after the Republicans took over the House.
Tell me, a few of the most telling polls were;
~ Aug 12, 2010 CBS:
More Americans think Obama, Not Bush, Enacted Bank
Bailouts, Poll Shows
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-americans-think-obama-not-bush-enacted-bank-bailouts-poll-shows/
~ Oct 28, 2010 Bloomberg
The poll finds Republicans in an unusual position: on the brink of making political gains while the party and its policies are unpopular. Likely voters are evenly divided on the Republican Party, with 47 percent holding a positive opinion.
In a cautionary note, voters overwhelmingly say they don’t want a Republican
takeover to result in gridlock in Congress. Four-fifths say they want Republicans and Democrats to work together to get things done, as opposed to rigidly sticking to principles.”
Less than one-third of poll respondents — 31 percent — say they support cutting
federal spending in areas such as education and health care, excluding Social
Security, Medicare and defense.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2065100&sid=ag.hSPwmN4Vk
Then….
~ 10/28/10 8:09 AM EDT
John Boehner: ‘We will not compromise’
Was it any surprise that;
~December 9, 2010
Voters Say Election Full of Misleading and False Information
Poll Also Finds Voters Were Misinformed on Key Issues
World Public Opinion
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php
And
~ Oct 28, 2011 Fox News poll: Majority favors Obama’s jobs plan and faults GOP for blocking it
~ Nov. 7, 2011 Washington Post
Post/ABC survey: “50% think GOP intentionally stalling economy, including 51% of Indies, & 15% of GOPers.
Mike Butkus Jr. November 4th, 2014 at 10:37
So the big question for me is, why are the democrats reluctant in using this info and drive it down the Republicans throat? I don’t get it? Its very frustrating to watch.
Suzanne McFly November 4th, 2014 at 12:32
Exactly, lower employment numbers, stock market is booming, Osama is dead, no one has attacked us on our soil….it amazes me this isn’t seen as outstanding job Obama is doing.
Spirit of America November 5th, 2014 at 02:29
“no one has attacked us on our soil.”
2009 Fort hood, killing 13 wounding 30+
2009 little rock
2009 Underwear bomber
2010 times square
2013 boston…
OldLefty November 4th, 2014 at 12:33
I think it depends upon the electorate.
I believe, (strictly my opinion, based on personal experience), that even if Allison Lundergan Grimes would shout from the rooftops and PROVE that ‘You Kentuckians who LOVE your Kynect, have the DEMOCRATIC House, and the DEMOCRATIC Senate and the DEMOCRATIC President and your DEMOCRATIC governor to thank. You have the REPUBLICAN House reps and REPUBLICAN senators and REPUBLICAN Mitch McConnell for getting in the way and trying to nix it.’, they would only resent her for confronting her with an uncomfortable truth and vote for McConnell.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker November 4th, 2014 at 21:07
Maybe, but she didn’t run on any Democratic successes, issues accomplishments or policies. She sold out and is now a loser for her stupidity and lack of willingness to fight for progressive causes.
OldLefty November 4th, 2014 at 21:46
I doubt if that would have helped her in a state that hangs onto this kind of cognitive dissonance.
Remember, McConnell also she didn’t run on any REPUBLICAN successes, issues accomplishments or policies. He sold out by saying he would repeal “Obamacare”, but not KyNect and is now a winner for his duplicity and lack of willingness to fight for ANY causes.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker November 4th, 2014 at 21:56
Yup, that’s how they win…..playing on fear, anger, lies and superstition.
OldLefty November 4th, 2014 at 22:24
But they need voters who are receptive to fear, anger, lies and superstition.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker November 4th, 2014 at 22:35
Ignorant, uneducated and racist also helps, so that’s why the hillbilly states are prime pickin’.
mea_mark November 4th, 2014 at 08:24
This being a red state election cycle mainly, the media are catering to what the red state viewers want to hear. It is all about getting advertising dollars. Elections are big business for the media. Red state hate is what is being reflected in the media, not national sentiment. There will be a shift after the elections as the media starts to cater to whoever they think will be spending the most ad dollars. We live more in a dollarocracy than we do in a democracy.
mea_mark November 4th, 2014 at 09:24
This being a red state election cycle mainly, the media are catering to what the red state viewers want to hear. It is all about getting advertising dollars. Elections are big business for the media. Red state hate is what is being reflected in the media, not national sentiment. There will be a shift after the elections as the media starts to cater to whoever they think will be spending the most ad dollars. We live more in a dollarocracy than we do in a democracy.
Jack E Raynbeau November 4th, 2014 at 09:23
No president since Truman has gone into his 7th year with a majority in either house of congress. It will be interesting to see if history repeats.
Jack E Raynbeau November 4th, 2014 at 10:23
No president since Truman has gone into his 7th year with a majority in either house of congress. It will be interesting to see if history repeats.
Dwendt44 November 4th, 2014 at 11:50
Can’t help but wonder just WHO they are asking. Most young folks have cell phones, even many older people/couples are dumping their land lines for a cell phone. Like many cell phone owners, I don’t answer calls from people I don’t know, numbers with no name attached, much less no number at all.
Dwendt44 November 4th, 2014 at 12:50
Can’t help but wonder just WHO they are asking. Most young folks have cell phones, even many older people/couples are dumping their land lines for a cell phone. Like many cell phone owners, I don’t answer calls from people I don’t know, numbers with no name attached, much less no number at all.
Bunya November 4th, 2014 at 14:11
This sounds suspiciously like a psychological tactic. Get enough low information voters to believe the democratic president is doing a poor job are more likely to believe democrats, in general, will be a poor choice. This sometimes works and voters who generally vote democratic will either avoid voting or may vote republican.
Bunya November 4th, 2014 at 15:11
This sounds suspiciously like a psychological tactic. Get enough low information voters to believe the democratic president is doing a poor job are more likely to believe democrats, in general, will be a poor choice. This sometimes works and voters who generally vote democratic will either avoid voting or may vote republican.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker November 4th, 2014 at 20:00
Oh, there you go with facts again!
Don’t you know fact don’t matter to wingnuts?
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker November 4th, 2014 at 21:00
Oh, there you go with facts again!
Don’t you know fact don’t matter to wingnuts?
trees November 11th, 2014 at 17:52
Nonsense, he’s having a great year. He just needs to grab his scepter, (pen), and start ruling. Legislative branch? We don’t need no stinking legislative branch…..
OldLefty November 11th, 2014 at 18:03
That’s EXACTLY what WE said about King George.
That’s EXACTLY what many said about Ronald Reagan.
“Legislative branch? We don’t need no stinking legislative branch…..”
_______
That’s what the GOP said when they were the minority and definitely what the five Super Legislators on the SCORUS seem to believe.
arc99 November 11th, 2014 at 18:21
The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order issued by Abraham Lincoln. I guess Lincoln didn’t need no stinking legislative branch either.
I am sure glad that 21st century right wingers were not in Lincoln’s cabinet.
You guys whine a lot about executive orders. Conspicuously absent is any intelligent argument that any given order is outside of the President’s lawful authority.
But silly me, I have heard very few intelligent arguments from the President’s critics. After six years, why should you start now?
trees November 11th, 2014 at 18:55
Jonathan Turley has this to say,
“While I believe that the White House has clearly “exceeded its brief” in these areas, this question of presidential non-enforcement has arisen periodically in our history.
In the current controversy, the White House has suggested an array of arguments, citing the interpretation of statutory text, agency discretion, or other rationales to mask what is clearly a circumvention of Congress. It also appears to be relying on the expectation that no one will be able to secure standing to challenge such decisions in court. Finally, there is no question that the President as Chief Executive is allowed to set priorities of the administration and to determine the best way to enforce the law. People of good faith can clearly disagree on where the line is drawn over the failure to fully enforce federal laws.
There is ample room given to a president in setting priorities in the enforcement of laws. A president is not required to enforce all laws equally or dedicate the same resources to every federal program. Even with this ample allowance, however, I believe that President Barack Obama has crossed the constitutional line between discretionary enforcement and defiance of federal law. Congress is given the defining function of creating and amending federal law. This is more than a turf fight between politicians.
The division of governmental powers is designed to protect liberty by preventing the abusive concentration of power. All citizens –Democratic or Republican or Independent – should consider the inherent danger presented by a President who can unilaterally suspend laws as a matter of presidential license.
In recent years, I have testified and written about the shift of power within ourtripartite government toward a more Imperial Presidential model. Indeed, I last testified before this Committee on the assertion of President Obama that he could use the recess appointment power to circumvent the Senate during a brief intra-session recess. While I viewed those appointments to be facially unconstitutional under the language of Article I and II (a view later shared by two federal circuits), I was equally concerned about the overall expansion of unchecked presidential authority and the relative decline of legislative power in the modern American system. The recent nonenforcement policies add a particularly menacing element to this pattern. They effectively reduce the legislative process to a series of options for presidential selection ranging from negation to full enforcement. The Framers warned us of such a system and we accept it – either by acclaim or acquiescence – at our peril.”
OldLefty November 12th, 2014 at 11:13
Have you read Jonathan Turley’s scolding of Obama for not prosecuting Bush?
Speaker Pelosi’s Latest Justification for Barring Impeachment: Bush Would Never Cooperate With His Own Impeachment.
Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley joined Keith to commend Kucinich and his impeachment bill, which is now co-sponsored by Rep. Robert Wexler. While Turley says there are numerous crimes for which Bush could easily be impeached, the President’s greatest ally has been the Democratic Congress who have skirted their constitutional duties and consistently given him a pass rather than practice any oversight. It’s clear impeachment will remain off the table for the remainder of Bush’s term, but as Keith put it, problems like this will never be solved if people like Kucinich and Wexler don’t stand up and say something.
Funny how Jonathan Turley was called a “left wing loon” by the right when he was calling for Bush’s impeachment and prosecution for war crimes.
Dirk Prophet November 11th, 2014 at 21:28
What legislative branch?
trees November 11th, 2014 at 18:52
Nonsense, he’s having a great year. He just needs to grab his scepter, (pen), and start ruling. Legislative branch? We don’t need no stinking legislative branch…..
OldLefty November 11th, 2014 at 19:03
That’s EXACTLY what WE said about King George.
That’s EXACTLY what many said about Ronald Reagan.
“Legislative branch? We don’t need no stinking legislative branch…..”
_______
That’s what the GOP said when they were the minority and definitely what the five Super Legislators on the SCORUS seem to believe.
arc99 November 11th, 2014 at 19:21
The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order issued by Abraham Lincoln. I guess Lincoln didn’t need no stinking legislative branch either.
I am sure glad that 21st century right wingers were not in Lincoln’s cabinet.
You guys whine a lot about executive orders. Conspicuously absent is any intelligent argument that any given order is outside of the President’s lawful authority.
But silly me, I have heard very few intelligent arguments from the President’s critics. After six years, why should you start now?
trees November 11th, 2014 at 19:55
Jonathan Turley has this to say,
“While I believe that the White House has clearly “exceeded its brief” in these areas, this question of presidential non-enforcement has arisen periodically in our history.
In the current controversy, the White House has suggested an array of arguments, citing the interpretation of statutory text, agency discretion, or other rationales to mask what is clearly a circumvention of Congress. It also appears to be relying on the expectation that no one will be able to secure standing to challenge such decisions in court. Finally, there is no question that the President as Chief Executive is allowed to set priorities of the administration and to determine the best way to enforce the law. People of good faith can clearly disagree on where the line is drawn over the failure to fully enforce federal laws.
There is ample room given to a president in setting priorities in the enforcement of laws. A president is not required to enforce all laws equally or dedicate the same resources to every federal program. Even with this ample allowance, however, I believe that President Barack Obama has crossed the constitutional line between discretionary enforcement and defiance of federal law. Congress is given the defining function of creating and amending federal law. This is more than a turf fight between politicians.
The division of governmental powers is designed to protect liberty by preventing the abusive concentration of power. All citizens –Democratic or Republican or Independent – should consider the inherent danger presented by a President who can unilaterally suspend laws as a matter of presidential license.
In recent years, I have testified and written about the shift of power within ourtripartite government toward a more Imperial Presidential model. Indeed, I last testified before this Committee on the assertion of President Obama that he could use the recess appointment power to circumvent the Senate during a brief intra-session recess. While I viewed those appointments to be facially unconstitutional under the language of Article I and II (a view later shared by two federal circuits), I was equally concerned about the overall expansion of unchecked presidential authority and the relative decline of legislative power in the modern American system. The recent nonenforcement policies add a particularly menacing element to this pattern. They effectively reduce the legislative process to a series of options for presidential selection ranging from negation to full enforcement. The Framers warned us of such a system and we accept it – either by acclaim or acquiescence – at our peril.”
OldLefty November 12th, 2014 at 12:13
Have you read Jonathan Turley’s scolding of Obama for not prosecuting Bush?
Speaker Pelosi’s Latest Justification for Barring Impeachment: Bush Would Never Cooperate With His Own Impeachment.
Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley joined Keith to commend Kucinich and his impeachment bill, which is now co-sponsored by Rep. Robert Wexler. While Turley says there are numerous crimes for which Bush could easily be impeached, the President’s greatest ally has been the Democratic Congress who have skirted their constitutional duties and consistently given him a pass rather than practice any oversight. It’s clear impeachment will remain off the table for the remainder of Bush’s term, but as Keith put it, problems like this will never be solved if people like Kucinich and Wexler don’t stand up and say something.
Funny how Jonathan Turley was called a “left wing loon” by the right when he was calling for Bush’s impeachment and prosecution for war crimes.
Dirk Prophet November 11th, 2014 at 22:28
What legislative branch?
arc99 November 11th, 2014 at 18:47
I found this letter to the editor via a DailyKos reference.
It is a letter to the editor written a few days ago to the Detroit Free Press.
Pretty much sums up the current state of politics in the United States.
http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/readers/2014/11/07/obama-election-republicans-gop-democrats-senate/18606217/
So, Americans vote for the party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of? This defies reason. When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way?
Richard Brunt
Victoria, British Columbia
arc99 November 11th, 2014 at 19:47
I found this letter to the editor via a DailyKos reference.
It is a letter to the editor written a few days ago to the Detroit Free Press.
Pretty much sums up the current state of politics in the United States.
http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/readers/2014/11/07/obama-election-republicans-gop-democrats-senate/18606217/
So, Americans vote for the party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of? This defies reason. When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way?
Richard Brunt
Victoria, British Columbia