Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama to become most unpopular president EVER so early in his presidency?
Vanity ^ | 7-30-09 | Dangus

Posted on 07/30/2009 3:26:56 PM PDT by dangus

In 1993, Bill Clinton’s approval ratings sank to 37%, according to a Gallup poll at the time. Yet he was re-elected. Does this mean that Obama can survive his own sinking approval ratings? Maybe not.

The low approval ratings of President Clinton were partly due to an American public withholding judgment on his presidency. Unlike President Obama, Clinton had been elected with a mere plurality (43%) of the vote. Clinton’s disapproval ratings peaked at 49%. In 1996, he was again elected with a mere plurality (49%) of the vote.

In 1994, the Republican party swept into power, gaining 52 house seats and ten senate seats. Certainly, anger at President Clinton’s liberalism helped motivate many Republican voters. Yet Clinton had already recovered his approval rating to 49%. Most generic Congressional preference polls failed to detect a Republican-voting majority. The opposition to Obama is much sharper. Fully 40% of Americans strongly disapprove of Obama’s performance in office, according to the latest Rasmussen poll; although the Rasmussen poll did not exist in 1993, this is likely considerably higher than President Clinton ever would have achieved.

This polling data points to a possible Republican tsunami. That may not be good for conservatives. The Republicans hold most of the Senate seats up for grabs, and need to gain 11 more, for an historic 27 wins. For the Republicans to recapture the Senate, they’d have to win in states as profoundly liberal as New York, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii and Delaware. The winners would likely include many “moderates” who would vote with the Democrats on most contentious issues. Conservatives might be better to have 43 conservative Republicans, 5 Democrat-voting Republicans and 52 Democrats in the Senate than to have 43 conservative Republicans, 10 Democrat-voting Republicans and 47 Democrats in the Senate. If the country is to be controlled by liberals, isn’t it better that Democrats take the blame?

Barring a surprise such as a sudden, sharp reversal in the rising unemployment rate, the Republicans will gain plenty of seats to block a Democratic agenda; they only need 40 in the Senate. Conservatives would be wise focusing on winning primary elections and contributing to true conservatives than supporting candidates who are merely “the lesser of two evils.”


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 111th; 2009polls; bho44; dangus; democrats; election; poll; rasmussen

1 posted on 07/30/2009 3:26:56 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dangus

I fully agree with you.


2 posted on 07/30/2009 3:30:02 PM PDT by DarthVader (Liberalism is the politics of EVIL whose time of judgment has come.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

The rebound in Clinton’s ratings was due to the Oklahoma City bombing.


3 posted on 07/30/2009 3:30:12 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

When did this kind of polling begin?


4 posted on 07/30/2009 3:33:22 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (The Democrat Party: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn

That certainly helped. The strong economic growth brought on by the Republicans’ welfare reform, tax cuts and deregulation also helped, but the Oklahoma City bombing helped make President Clinton look like he was in charge.

I’m not sure such a disaster would help President Obama; after President Bush kept up safe for 7 1/2 years, a terrorist attack would likely be blamed on Obama’s weakness. Only a natural disaster would help Obama. Better keep Rahm Emmanuel away from the levies.


5 posted on 07/30/2009 3:33:45 PM PDT by dangus (I am JimThompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Does this mean that Obama can survive his own sinking approval ratings?

With ACORN all things are possible.

6 posted on 07/30/2009 3:33:58 PM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

What kind of polling? RasmussenReports.com came out around 1999. I hesitate to use other pollsters’ “strongly disapprove” data, because that’d be a little like comparing apples to oranges, since wording is so much more important than when one simply measures approval or disapproval. But NPR’s “strongly disapprove” to “strongly approve” ration has to be at least as terrifying to Democrats as Rasmussen. Only 34% “strongly disapprove,” but only 20% “strongly approve.”


7 posted on 07/30/2009 3:37:37 PM PDT by dangus (I am JimThompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dangus

What the article forgot to mention was that Clinton also won with a plurality in 1996. 2010’s senate elections seem analog to 1994. 2012’s election’s analog seems to be 1980’s analog. We all know what happened both times ;).


8 posted on 07/30/2009 3:39:39 PM PDT by TypeZoNegative (Pro life & Vegan because I respect all life, Republican because our enemies don't respect ours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Good analysis!


9 posted on 07/30/2009 3:44:04 PM PDT by BnBlFlag (Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis "Ya gotta saddle up your boys; Ya gotta draw a hard line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Good vanity. One thing about Clinton, though, is that in both elections Ross Perot ran.

The big question is who do the Republicans run? Despite all the blather about Zero's popularity, if the Republicans had run a decent candidate, they would have won. Clinton ran first against a wounded GHWBush. Bush was bloodied by Buchanan in the primaries and Ross Perot ran on a platform specifically designed to steal the most votes from Bush. In Clinton's second election, he ran against Bob Dole, who's campaign slogan was, "It's my turn."

Republicans cannot run lackluster aging party insiders who have no fire or vision. Six months in, there are plenty of reasons to vote against Zero. Can the Republicans give voters a reason to vote for them?

10 posted on 07/30/2009 3:44:26 PM PDT by Richard Kimball (We're all criminals. They just haven't figured out what some of us have done yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn

Didn’t help running Dole in 96.


11 posted on 07/30/2009 3:46:51 PM PDT by Sybeck1 (No teleprompters were harmed in the creation of this post.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Better keep Rahm Emmanuel away from the levies.

Once Rahm figures out how to work Rove's hurricane machine, coastal residents watch out!

12 posted on 07/30/2009 3:48:34 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
The first time an acorn goon does something stupid (which is inevitable their being goons and all) while taking the census for instance, and it hits the news, that will sink their hopes.
13 posted on 07/30/2009 3:51:30 PM PDT by gidget7 (Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gidget7
The first time an acorn goon does something stupid ... and it hits the news, that will sink their hopes.

The "hitting the news" part will never happen, at least not in the state-run media.

14 posted on 07/30/2009 3:59:34 PM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dangus

I am thinking that the Republicans had better come up with a reason to vote FOR them, otherwise what is the difference? If we have Obama care, cap and trade and a left wing “volunteer” army, they won’t have the guts to do anything about them.


15 posted on 07/30/2009 4:01:42 PM PDT by runninglips (It was just time for this to come to a head.....hope we wake up soon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Barring a surprise such as a sudden, sharp reversal in the rising unemployment rate, the Republicans will gain plenty of seats to block a Democratic agenda; they only need 40 in the Senate”

What about the House?
Do you have any polls, predictions for that?

16 posted on 07/30/2009 4:08:34 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard Kimball
Despite all the blather about Zero's popularity, if the Republicans had run a decent candidate, they would have won”

No question Juan McCain was about the worst candidate the Republicans could have put up.
It wasn't so much that conservatives were voting FOR McCain, conservatives were voting AGINST 0bama and for Sarah Palin. McCain by himself, certainly deserved to lose.

17 posted on 07/30/2009 4:13:22 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Clinton may have been reelected but the Dems lost control of Congress and he was impeached. I’ll take an Obama reelection under those conditions.


18 posted on 07/30/2009 4:16:56 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus
"That certainly helped. The strong economic growth brought on by the Republicans’ welfare reform, tax cuts and deregulation also helped, but the Oklahoma City bombing helped make President Clinton look like he was in charge."


There were several factors, among which was that he was successful in painting his opponents as solely driven my personal animosity towards him. The Clinton's played "the politics of personal destruction" card very effectively.
19 posted on 07/30/2009 4:24:42 PM PDT by rob777 (Personal Responsibility is the Price of Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader; freekitty; sheik yerbouty; Nachum; justiceseeker93; unkus; flat; 2ndDivisionVet; ...

His Socialist cohorts like Pelosi, Reid, Babs Boxer, Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank et al all must go down with him. They’re all in this disastrous plot together.


20 posted on 07/30/2009 4:30:03 PM PDT by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Clinton was re-elected thanks to Republicans.

He fortunately got a Republican congress who kept him from being himself and doing every sort of liberal Utopian scheme obama is doing.

And then much like this last election, Republicans ran one of the worst possible candidates: Bob Dole. God bless the man for his service to our country, but he was a horrible candidate.

obama's re-election is a very long way off and obama isn't getting off to a very good start, while doing a lot of damage. Voters will be feeling the results from obama, Reid and Pelosi's bohica treatment of America by 2010. That election could save obama just like the midterm saved Clinton.

21 posted on 07/30/2009 4:35:22 PM PDT by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TypeZoNegative

>>What the article forgot to mention was that Clinton also won with a plurality in 1996. <<

Actually, the 2nd paragraph states exactly that: “In 1996, he was again elected with a mere plurality (49%) of the vote.”


22 posted on 07/30/2009 4:38:18 PM PDT by dangus (I am JimThompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: runninglips

I agree: Read the article.


23 posted on 07/30/2009 4:39:26 PM PDT by dangus (I am JimThompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe

Rasmussen puts the Republicans up +4% in the generic congressional preference survey; NPR has them +1; GWU/Battleground still shows a Dem lead of +3; Given the Democrats’ concentration in urban districts which vote 90%+ Democratic, a tie goes to the Republicans.


24 posted on 07/30/2009 4:41:11 PM PDT by dangus (I am JimThompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

Limbo, Limbo. How low can he go?


25 posted on 07/30/2009 4:52:40 PM PDT by mathurine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dangus

For him to win again the GOP has to run a Bob Dole or John McCain. We are doomed!


26 posted on 07/30/2009 5:01:54 PM PDT by bmwcyle (Obama's lies make Bill Clinton's lie small)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Thanks.
2010 is looking better by the minute.
Republicans are gonna have to make sure they put in really good, solid, conservative candidates with principles though. None of that sleazy Mark Foley type Republican for me, thank you. That sucker contributed more to our losses in 2006 than anyone else did.
27 posted on 07/30/2009 5:20:52 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn
The rebound in Clinton’s ratings was due to the Oklahoma City bombing.

The rebound in impeached ex-President Clinton's ratings were mostly due to the fiscal responsibility enforced on him from the Republic House and Senate. He won reelection because they put up a tired old man (I attended a Bob Dole campaign speech - my heart began to sink there when I heard him speak) and because so many promises from the Contract With America were broken.

28 posted on 07/30/2009 5:27:53 PM PDT by altair (My job just got "relocated" to India - Thank You Soetoro, Barney and Chris!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gidget7
The first time an acorn goon does something stupid (which is inevitable their being goons and all) while taking the census for instance

One should keep in mind that those ACORN goons control not only the census but also elections now.They have 4-8 billion $$$ to build vote count and the DoJ to suppress registrars and state actions against vote fraud.

29 posted on 07/30/2009 5:29:30 PM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GBA

If the election “saves” Hussein by taking away his Congress and Hussein has not by then already passed any of his Socialist America initiatives then he will be survivable.At the point that any of his initiatives passes, it ceases to matter who wins what in 2010 or any other election.


30 posted on 07/30/2009 5:33:09 PM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TypeZoNegative
2012’s election’s analog seems to be 1980’s analog.

It could be with the right candidate. We had soon-to-be-President Reagan running then. If another Dole or McCain (or any of the other clowns in the class of 2008 primaries) is put up, it won't be.

31 posted on 07/30/2009 5:36:58 PM PDT by altair (My job just got "relocated" to India - Thank You Soetoro, Barney and Chris!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Richard Kimball
Republicans cannot run lackluster aging party insiders who have no fire or vision.

Bump for truth. I attended a Bob Dole campaign rally and "lackluster" is probably the nicest word I could apply to it.

32 posted on 07/30/2009 5:39:29 PM PDT by altair (My job just got "relocated" to India - Thank You Soetoro, Barney and Chris!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dangus; SunkenCiv; Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj; Just A Nobody; smoothsailing; grellis; ...
The Republicans hold most of the Senate seats up for grabs.

While that would have been true if one were to forecast this last year, recent changes, including Specter's conversion and Clinton's and Biden's departures, now puts the numbers as 18 current Republican and 18 current Democratic seats to be contested in 2012.

33 posted on 07/30/2009 5:43:59 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead

I agree we must ship all of them to Devil’s Island in chains to serve hard time.


34 posted on 07/30/2009 7:47:31 PM PDT by DarthVader (Liberalism is the politics of EVIL whose time of judgment has come.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

2010 looks pretty good, with or without a US invasion of Iran.


35 posted on 07/30/2009 7:53:16 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__Since Jan 3, 2004__Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93; AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; ...
whoops, and thanks justiceseeker93.
Image and video hosting by TinyPic "From tiny ACORNs grow mighty oaks."

36 posted on 07/30/2009 7:54:25 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__Since Jan 3, 2004__Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

2010 is looking better by the day.


37 posted on 07/30/2009 8:06:54 PM PDT by 1035rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dangus
The low approval ratings of President Clinton were partly due to an American public withholding judgment on his presidency. Unlike President Obama, Clinton had been elected with a mere plurality (43%) of the vote. Clinton’s disapproval ratings peaked at 49%. In 1996, he was again elected with a mere plurality (49%) of the vote.
FDR got a majority of the popular vote in 1944. LBJ did it in 1964. Obama got just over a majority of votes cast (the minor party candidates pooled just over 1.2 per cent of the popular vote), a slightly better showing than Jimmy Carter, who (it sez here) got a shade over 50 per cent in 1976 (the counts vary, but the most complete I could find shows "Clean Gene" McCarthy with over 700K votes, and 810K to all other minor candidates combined; LaRouche for example polled a little over 40K; also, this more complete info shaves 16K votes off McCarthy). JFK didn't quite get there, and Clinton of course enjoyed Perot's major (millions of votes) showings in 1992 and 1996, which greatly helped him reach his two minority terms as president.
38 posted on 07/30/2009 8:15:49 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__Since Jan 3, 2004__Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Whoops, sorry, neglected to remove you from the “to” box. [blush]


39 posted on 07/30/2009 8:17:24 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__Since Jan 3, 2004__Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

Yes, we do know that. Scary times these are!


40 posted on 07/30/2009 8:20:29 PM PDT by gidget7 (Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: runninglips

I would love to see a whole S—tpot of RINO congress critters replaced by conservatives. Democrats are what they are .. and it would be nice to unseat them as well.

JUST DON”T do it with MODERATE Republicans or NOTHING changes.

Lets see the senate side (not knowing election cycle on each), hagel, Graham cracker, grassley, hutchinsoooon, snow, collins, mcLame, crist, arly sepectator .. oops he is a socialist that realized he could not even be reelected as a liberal republican in a liberal state .... you get the idea ..honk me a lugar and martinzez and the list goes on ..... all are worthless and all need to go.


41 posted on 07/30/2009 8:21:58 PM PDT by HiramQuick (work harder ... welfare recipients depend on you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

Sadly we know that too. A lot of realize what is going on, and how. ACORN, for the most part, the soldiers for it, are right off the streets of the large cities, and none of them will ever be allowed into most homes in America. Especially to collect answers that is none of their business or the govt’s.


42 posted on 07/30/2009 8:23:19 PM PDT by gidget7 (Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

My
Isn’t
That
True?


43 posted on 07/30/2009 8:43:02 PM PDT by dangus (I am JimThompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mathurine

Limbaugh, everybody Limbaugh!


44 posted on 07/30/2009 8:43:42 PM PDT by dangus (I am JimThompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Thanks for the ping!


45 posted on 07/30/2009 8:50:24 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dangus

I think what is most alarming for Obama and Democrat’s is that he won the marjority of Independent votes getting elected and now a very large majority of Independents strongly disapprove of him. He’s doomed.


46 posted on 09/03/2009 8:05:43 AM PDT by tjja98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson