"Obama is a worse president than Bush. It took Bush until late in his second term for his approval ratings to get this bad, but Obama did it in no time. Now, I think Clinton was a pretty good president."
This is a paraphrased quote from a friend of mine on the study abroad program. He was a great guy, but I always found his politics a little incoherent. On this particular assessment there was just so much wrong I didn't know where to start. What compounded matters was that in the very small classroom there was also the dumbest, petulant, talkative, beaver faced 17 year old girl you would ever meet. Between the two of them you couldn't get a word in edgewise. So I just kind of let it slide. But now that I've got some time on my hands, I figured I might as well correct the statement retroactively.
First off, obviously approval ratings don't equate to efficacy. A lot of Chinese loved Mao, but ultimately that one didn't work out to well for them. Secondly, President Obama's approval ratings are actually a little better than they should be.
Let me explain. When presidents are first elected they have a honeymoon period. Barring unforeseen events, the administration has the most sway over congress during this period than they will for the rest of their term. So they seize this opportunity to ram through as much legislation as possible. While their popularity would have declined anyway, pushing through so many contentious bills makes their fall from grace all the more harsh. So, ceteris paribus, during this period presidents are going to have low approval ratings
The best analogy to the current administration's situation is President Reagan. Both came to office with clean wins at a time when the economy was piss poor. People generally seem to agree that President Reagan did a good job. While I don't idolize the man I'm on the same page that the country did reasonably well while he was in office. The “Great Communicator” is also perceived as having been wildly popular even across the aisle. However, in mid to late September of his second year in office President Reagan's approval rating was actually negative! His unemployment figures were slightly higher and in all fairness, inflation should be factored in (sadly I could not find a website listing the misery index for all of these years) but ultimately it was about on par. Here's how it breaks down:
Carter:
Gallup approval: 45 - 40 approve
unemployment: 5.9%
Reagan:
Gallup approval: 42 - 48 disapprove
unemployment: 10.1%
Bush:
N/A (Rally effect: Gulf War)
Clinton:
Gallup approval: 44 - 44 even
unemployment: 5.7%
Bush:
N/A (Rally effect: 9/11)
Obama:
Gallup approval: 46 - 46 even
unemployment: 9.6%
I only go back to Carter because Nixon was really a game changer for the way the public looks at the president and definitely a game changer for the way the media treats the president. For the two Bushes you'll notice I put N/A, citing a “rally effect”. A rally effect occurs when the country goes to war or is attacked. During this period Americans generally stop thinking of themselves as Republicans or Democrats and simply identify as Americans. Because of this the President will see his or her approval ratings go up. This was just about the time when we went to war against Iraq in 1991, so it's not very fair to use President H.W. Bush. For President W. Bush, 9/11 was easily the most significant rally effect since polling became accurate. But you can clearly see that President Obama's approval ratings are actually a little bit ahead of the curve.
One other thing my friend said was that the Democratic party (he said “Democrat party”) is melting down. To say that the party is melting down or falling apart is silly. The impending loss for the Democrats should have been totally expected from the point when the economy turned sour in 2008.
(A) The president's party generally loses seats in midterm elections.
(B) Because the economy is bad, the party in power is going to be punished.
(C) The Democrats utterly tore the Republicans apart in 2006 and 2008. Could we really expect them to win more seats?
Nobody expected the economy to recover by this time. Democratic leaders had to see this coming from a mile away. I'm sure there are ways to judge exactly how many seats the Democrats should lose given the circumstances. In the end the real test will be to compare how many seats they actually lose versus and compare that to the predictions.
Historic Presidential approval ratings
This is a paraphrased quote from a friend of mine on the study abroad program. He was a great guy, but I always found his politics a little incoherent. On this particular assessment there was just so much wrong I didn't know where to start. What compounded matters was that in the very small classroom there was also the dumbest, petulant, talkative, beaver faced 17 year old girl you would ever meet. Between the two of them you couldn't get a word in edgewise. So I just kind of let it slide. But now that I've got some time on my hands, I figured I might as well correct the statement retroactively.
First off, obviously approval ratings don't equate to efficacy. A lot of Chinese loved Mao, but ultimately that one didn't work out to well for them. Secondly, President Obama's approval ratings are actually a little better than they should be.
Let me explain. When presidents are first elected they have a honeymoon period. Barring unforeseen events, the administration has the most sway over congress during this period than they will for the rest of their term. So they seize this opportunity to ram through as much legislation as possible. While their popularity would have declined anyway, pushing through so many contentious bills makes their fall from grace all the more harsh. So, ceteris paribus, during this period presidents are going to have low approval ratings
The best analogy to the current administration's situation is President Reagan. Both came to office with clean wins at a time when the economy was piss poor. People generally seem to agree that President Reagan did a good job. While I don't idolize the man I'm on the same page that the country did reasonably well while he was in office. The “Great Communicator” is also perceived as having been wildly popular even across the aisle. However, in mid to late September of his second year in office President Reagan's approval rating was actually negative! His unemployment figures were slightly higher and in all fairness, inflation should be factored in (sadly I could not find a website listing the misery index for all of these years) but ultimately it was about on par. Here's how it breaks down:
Carter:
Gallup approval: 45 - 40 approve
unemployment: 5.9%
Reagan:
Gallup approval: 42 - 48 disapprove
unemployment: 10.1%
Bush:
N/A (Rally effect: Gulf War)
Clinton:
Gallup approval: 44 - 44 even
unemployment: 5.7%
Bush:
N/A (Rally effect: 9/11)
Obama:
Gallup approval: 46 - 46 even
unemployment: 9.6%
I only go back to Carter because Nixon was really a game changer for the way the public looks at the president and definitely a game changer for the way the media treats the president. For the two Bushes you'll notice I put N/A, citing a “rally effect”. A rally effect occurs when the country goes to war or is attacked. During this period Americans generally stop thinking of themselves as Republicans or Democrats and simply identify as Americans. Because of this the President will see his or her approval ratings go up. This was just about the time when we went to war against Iraq in 1991, so it's not very fair to use President H.W. Bush. For President W. Bush, 9/11 was easily the most significant rally effect since polling became accurate. But you can clearly see that President Obama's approval ratings are actually a little bit ahead of the curve.
One other thing my friend said was that the Democratic party (he said “Democrat party”) is melting down. To say that the party is melting down or falling apart is silly. The impending loss for the Democrats should have been totally expected from the point when the economy turned sour in 2008.
(A) The president's party generally loses seats in midterm elections.
(B) Because the economy is bad, the party in power is going to be punished.
(C) The Democrats utterly tore the Republicans apart in 2006 and 2008. Could we really expect them to win more seats?
Nobody expected the economy to recover by this time. Democratic leaders had to see this coming from a mile away. I'm sure there are ways to judge exactly how many seats the Democrats should lose given the circumstances. In the end the real test will be to compare how many seats they actually lose versus and compare that to the predictions.
Historic Presidential approval ratings
RSS Feed