Posted on 03/07/2009 2:57:19 PM PST by dangus
RasmussenReports' new daily tracking poll has President Barrack Obama receiving his lowest approval rating since immediately after the election, 56%. 43% of Americans generally disapprove of his performance, 31% strongly do.
Obama's approval rating was immediately after the election was 52%. As is typical after an election (according to longer-standing polls, such as Gallup), America put aside its partisan feelings, giving the newly elected the benefit of the doubt: his approvals rose to 67% over the course of the next month, peaking at 69%. They stayed in that range, which was high even for a newly elected president, until inauguration day.
Since his inauguration, Obama's presidential approval index (Rasmussen's measure of strong approval minus strong disapproval) plunged by nearly three quarters. Within a week, his approval rating reached 60%; It;s fluctuated slightly within each week, bouncing as high as 63%, but his weekly approval rating average has declined each week.
Each new low has occurred over a weekend; each midweek sees his approval ratings bounce slightly, so he may be slightly better off then 56%. A week ago, he polled at 58%, and Newsweek's most recent poll matches that. Fox News, on the other hand is closer to 63%.
Other presidents' approval ratings have surged in this time. President George W. Bush was inaugurated with approval ratings barely cracking 50%, but they surged to the mid-60s. Reagan's moved from the mid-50s to nearly 70%. George H.W. Bush's reached the high 70s. Clinton moved to the mid-60s; Kennedy and Carter also reached the 70s. Only the unelected Gerald Ford saw his approval ratings decline so soon after inauguration.
Actually, I’ve been reading a lot about Roosevelt. I’ve previously regarded him a little conspiratorial, but I think by 1937, he recognized the threat Hitler was, and he knew that America needed to be fiscally strong to counter him.
The 1933-1937 growth was fairly anemic, especially given the enormity of the 1929-1933 recession. And I think it’s fair to say that Roosevelt sacrificed growth for big-government solutions to the intense human suffering. But it seems that the 1937-1939 recession was caused not by further fiscal irresponsibility, but by undoing his Keynesian spending. Compare it in some ways to the 1982 recession under Reagan’s watch.
In the case of Reagan, however, most conservatives give him credit for the astoundingly robust growth that occurred after the recession. Roosevelt’s gets lost in the 1940 military escalation. But I think that might be a shame because it seems to be also partly in response to some newly adopted fiscal conservativism.
This doesn’t mean Roosevelt didn’t have a Keynesian economic policy that retarded growth. The recession of 1937 was plainly caused by a fiscally necessary reversal of the Keynesian spending; Even Keynes himself would have to agree that if you increase spending to halt a downward cycle, you have to decrease it again afterward. And the growth during 1933-1937 was exceptionally meager, certainly not an ideal demonstration of Keynes’ economic theories.
I listen to a couple of broker shows each week just to see what THEY are saying. Last week one broker said (paraphrasing) that he thought Obama was sincere but making the wrong moves. This week he said (NOT paraphrasing) that he thinks Obama IS trying to tank this country.
I hate it when people do that on FR, and I NEVER read their crap.
It’s a little more subtle than that. He’s trying to even out the distribution of wealth. If that means destroying the middle and upper classes that produce (and own) the wealth, then so be it. Causing a depression might do what he wants so long as it’s the wealthy who lose the most, and he’s determined to make it so.
The left is thrilled by his job performace. Amazing and very telling is that as the financial crisis continues to exponentially worsen, a sizeable and growing minority is convinced that the country is now headed in the right direction. But they are clearly a minority, and their ideology is being discredited.
They will NEVER come around. The Dow Jones could fall to 600 and unemployment could rise to 30%, and it would be all Bush’s fault in their minds.
201ks are in the mail today that approval rate is going to dive
Please explain..........
Love to here how you know this.......
FDR didn’t have Rush limbaugh to contend with.
Kansas58 says: "I know that Brownback’s heart is in the right place on this."Kansas58, please explain how that is possible. Voting for any pro-abort appointment is bad, for this job it is tantamount to putting the ovens on HIGH and bringing the Zyklon-B in via railcars.
My liberal relatives, all of whom are employed by large companies, have become eerily quiet with their Obozo cheer leading emails recently. Heck, they're not even sending the occasional joke anymore.
Methinks they're quaking in their boots over their 401Ks, and know all too well "who" is causing them to plummet.
I've even "poked" them with some mild anti-Obama stuff recently, but I haven't seen a single head explode. Must be some serious shell shock.
Frankly, this is not really about Bush. Bush is a straw man. This is all about Stalin, Marx, Alinsky, Castro and Chavez. As Rush puts it this is a deliberate attempt, again a DELIBERATE ATTEMPT by the Marxists to send the economcy into the tank and destroy the capitalist system once and for all, to orchestrate and exacerbate a crisis, and then seize the opportunity to foist a totalitarian state on to America while they are watching the Yankees beat the Red Sox, who will win the edition of American Idol or who will be eliminated in the next Survivor episode.
Sometimes I feel like there are people on FR who feel their main mission in life is to piss on other people’s work. (I’m not sure that’s fair to say of RetiredArmy since it’s my first encounter with him; I mean this generally, and am only mentioning him by name because it’s unfair to talk about people behind their backs.)
True. Roosevelt appeared to be having some success at first. The economy was “poised for a beautiful recovery” in 1933, according to those guys at UCLA. But FDR strangled it.
Maybe we should start a pool on which country, and when, will Obama start a war to get out of his current mess.
I think you’ve gone a little before Rush’s own statements. Not that you’re wrong, though.
Getting Kathleen Sebelius out of Kansas will help us take down Tiller, and will help deplete the resources of the proaborts richest and most notorious abortionist and campaign contributor.
Yes, it is horrible to see Sebelius promoted like this, however, this way, the country knows what it is in for. NOBODY who would take the place of Sebelius, at HHS, would be any better.
Just because a general does not attack the enemy on ALL FRONTS at the same time, does not mean that the general is a “traitor” -— there is such a thing as tactical war and such a thing as strategic war, there are choices to be made.
You seem far to intent on “eating our own” or forming circular firing squads.
You need to calm down, take a deep breath, and ask yourself one question:
“Who has done more for the prolife cause, me or Sam Brownback”
And, even after that question, and this decision, your honest answer should be:
“Sam Brownback”
Our conservative leaders should not have to worry about stoking the egos and affirming the jugment and fragile identies of the prolife movement.
You don't like Sebelius? Guess what, we agree!
You don't want Sebelius to be HHS Secretary? Well, great, then Sebelius stays in Kansas, protects Tiller for another 2 years, and then Sebelius moves to the United States Senate.
And, all the while, the “stealth” proabort, who might run HHS, instead of Sebelius, does EXACTLY the same things in that job, as Sebelius would have done!
WHAT, exactly, does your “plan” accomplish?????
And, I agree to a point that you really did kinda hijack this thread.
However, part of Obama’s decline IS because of Obama’s radical social views, which were hidden by the media, until now.
Have you read The Forgotten Man by Amity Schlaes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.