Posted on 01/21/2013 10:43:08 AM PST by lbryce
At first blush, the reaction to this Gallup poll is … so what? Barack Obama managed to get himself elected to a second term anyway, even with historically anemic approval numbers. But there’s more to this than just last November:
President Barack Obama averaged 49.1% job approval during his first term in office, among the lowest for post-World War II presidents. Only Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford had lower job approval averages. Obama’s first-term average is most similar to Bill Clinton’s. Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, and Dwight Eisenhower were the most popular first-term presidents.
Obama’s first-term approval average, like those of most presidents with lower first-term averages, was likely dragged down by a sluggish economy. Clinton and Reagan saw higher second-term approval as the economy improved. Obama’s approval rating has also shown improvement, with a 48.1% average in his fourth year in office after a 44.4% average in his third year.
Obama has recently rebounded, but it’s still not terribly impressive from a historical standpoint:
The more recent positive trend in evaluations of Obama is evident in his quarterly averages. For his 16th quarter in office, from Oct. 20 through Jan. 19, he averaged 51.9% approval. That was his first quarterly average above 50% since his fourth quarter in office. Obama has seen at least modest improvement in his job approval average each of the last five quarters, since a term-low 41.0% in his 11th quarter in office. That quarter was marked by contentious negotiations to raise the federal debt ceiling, and an ensuing drop in the stock market while unemployment remained high.
Even at 51.9%, Obama doesn’t have much momentum rolling into his second term. That only puts him above Reagan and Clinton, neither of whom were known for their second-term agendas.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
What is even less demonstrative in the ability to quantify the low poll numbers, yet effects the political landscape and the way it eventually influences the nation to its utter detriment to a far greater degree is the immoral even criminal component, characteristics of the president and the way he governs, that while yields the greatest influence in the political outcome, is ever hardly reflected in a way he ever has to be held accountable for.
It also shows everyone how much Mitt Romney sucked as a candidate. The GOP-e did it again.
Great, a lot of good that does the country!
How much more evidence do we need?
That’s exactly the point. Why repeat the blatantly obvious?
With these low approval numbers, John Roberts will not be able to deliver the Oath of Office to Obama for a fifth time.
1) Vote fraud, but that alone was not sufficient without:
2) Romney's incredibly inept campaign (Google ORCA and get bac to me for just one example), and
3) Romney's across the board lack of appeal. He could not connect with voters and he could not hit Obama on his worst actions such as Obamacare and Wall Street pandering.
If the GOP had managed to run anyone with a pulse and a clue, they would have whumped Obama. Remember, if you win big, they can't cheat.
Don’t forget millions of dollars of your tax money in anti-Romney ads by Planned Parenthood.
That ties into his inept campaign - he failed to adequately counterattack those negative ads.
I'd love to see what future historians - WITHOUT A BIAS - do to explain this dichotomy and not admit that the election was stolen.
Concur, he still has the strongest, unqualitified support of the media that any POTUS has ever had.
There are 3rd world dictators that have to deal with a more hostile press than this twit.
Four more years!
I agree with all your points.
People did not like Mitt Romney. Even before the debates, the democrats were able to define him as an out of touch and uncaring rich guy. His campaign did little to refute that perception and did precious little to attack the President.
Mitt Romney was too nice during the campaign. The one time he gained any traction was after the first debate. However, he became mr. niceguy again in the next two debates. People began to reconsider after the first debate, but then quickly forgot about it again because of his subsequent performances. This assessment was not helped by the weak performance of Ryan in his encounter with maniacally grinning joker, rude, junior high school antics of Biden.
Lastly, conservative candidates must learn from Drudge and Breitbart on how to use the Internet and social media. Romney’s election team failed miserably to utilize this increasingly important method of communication.
Point is the Republicans should have won this easily even with the increasing number of welfare recipients out there.
Let’s see,
Dull Dole.
Juan McLame.
Mitt Romney?
Gots to wonder WHO’s next,
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Ann Rice? Marco Rubio?
Wait til Rubio proposes illegal amnesty of some sort or another.
And a latin or black will attract about a much support as would a MOrman from the right wing of the Republican party./
“It also shows everyone how much Mitt Romney sucked as a candidate. The GOP-e did it again.”
Sucked like a gravity well. Sucked like a black hole. And yes, the Geriatric Old Plotters did do it again, and they will in 2014 too.
“It also shows everyone how much Mitt Romney sucked as a candidate. The GOP-e did it again.”
Sucked like a gravity well. Sucked like a black hole. And yes, the Geriatric Old Plotters did do it again, and they will in 2014 too.
Yep he rates right up there with FDR as the only two presidents to have taken the Oath of Office four times.
They fixed the election but must have forgotten to fix the polls.
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.