home

Approval Ratings

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 07:59:08 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A lot of high fiving going on in some quarters because President Barack Obama has a 67% approval rating on his handling of the stimulus issue (and a job approval rating of 64%) in the latest Gallup poll.

Something to remember - George W. Bush had a 71% job approval rating in an April 2003 Gallup poll. And we know how that ended up.

Results matter. Just sayin'

Speaking for me only

< DA Wants to Limit Bar's Authority to Punish Prosecutors | Shining a Spotlight on Tim Cole's Conviction >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Approval Ratings | 34 comments (34 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 08:54:03 AM EST
    I agree with you.  But Bush made perhaps one of the greatest mistakes in Presidential history in April of 2003.  

    Ah (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 09:00:54 AM EST
    Now I see what you are getting at.

    Seems more appropos to my post on Tomasky's article - to wit - no declaring victory now.

    Parent

    And Obama has probably made one of the (none / 0) (#10)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 11:13:52 AM EST
    greatest mistakes in presidential history in February, 2009 - if, in fact, the downturn has passed the tipping point and goes into free fall - as Krugman foresees.

    Parent
    hyperbole much? (none / 0) (#12)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 11:40:02 AM EST
    Jeez this place never changes.  

    What exactly was one of the greatest presidential mistakes that Obama did?

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#1)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 08:37:18 AM EST
    I don't think that his approval rating matters in the long run.  But it does matter when it comes to the stimulus package.

    Interesting date you picked there, BTD.

    I could have picked October 2002 (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 08:40:18 AM EST
    when it was 90%.

    Hell, I could have picked Bush 41's approval rating in March 1991, which was also 90%.

    You miss my point - results matter in the end.

    Parent

    Ratings (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 09:46:35 AM EST
    His ratings are still high beacuse he's new and people want to give him the benefit of the doubt.  They have come down a little because all the hype and hoopla of "The Inauguration of Our Very First Black President" has died down a bit, but as BTD has been saying, he will never have this much goodwill again.

    Once people start to understand the details of this "stimulus" package, his ratings will come down and will probably hover around 50%.  If the stimulus doesn't start producing tangible results by Easter or Memorial Day, then you may start to see a slide.  It seems some of the media have awakened from their slumber now that Prince Charming has kissed them and they realize he's just really a regular frog.

    Anyone (none / 0) (#6)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 10:06:37 AM EST
    expecting a stiumulus package passed in late Feb/early March to have an impact in May is on drugs.

    Parent
    It will matter very much especially (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 11:16:50 AM EST
    in 2 yrs, by which time Krugman predicts another 600,000 jobs will be lost.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 10:28:50 AM EST
    Regular people are not going to be patient and say, "Great - the stimulus is finally working " - in 2011.  They need help now and they want to see the results of spending $1 trillion.  Some of it (And more than a trifling) has to happen immediately.

    Parent
    Just sayin... (none / 0) (#8)
    by CST on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 10:34:43 AM EST
    There is a lot of time btwn May of this year and 2011.

    For example, helping the state budgets is a relatively immediate fix.  Funding for teachers will greatly effect the economy starting in Sept.  That is after May, and before 2011...

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:52:36 PM EST
    There is a lot of time between May of this year and 2011, so if some of these programs don't realize the full impact of the stimulus, it's not really going to matter to someone who loses their job and house in in June of this year. ("Good news honey!  I can get a job helping to bridge repair.  The only thing is, the job won't be available for 2 years!")

    Parent
    btw (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CST on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:42:50 PM EST
    I was reading another post of yours that described the things you think should be cut from the budget.  You listed funds for Amtrak and infrastructure spending on projects that aren't ready to be built yet.

    regarding Amtrak - the point of having a national train system is not to make money, it's so people can take the train.  Think about it like a highway.  The point of a highway is not to make money, it's to get from a to b.  A good train line is like a more efficient highway.  That should be the goal of Amtrak, not necessarily profit.

    secondly - a lot of people are employed during the design process of infrastructure projects.  Engineering and architecture firms are really hurting right now.  Giving money only to projects in the construction phase isn't gonna cut it.

    Parent

    I think you misunderstand (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:55:53 PM EST
    I didn't say it should be cut from the budget.  I said it should be cut from this stimulus bill (or pared down).  This stimulus bill should be bare bones of what will get the economy started - it should not be a catch-all of pet projects.  Of course, everyone is going to argue that THEIR project will create jobs and stimulate the economy, but Amtrak hasn't turned a profit in 40 years, so I doubt this is the year they are going to turn things around and start making money hand over fist.

    There are other bills where this could be considered, including the actual federal omnibus budget bill that will come out this summer.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 05:06:54 PM EST
    I imagine the money for Amtrak will be so they can build tracks and staff trains, not so they can turn a profit.  I just get frustrated because the "not profitable" argument is often used when opposing transit related projects, which completely ignores the fact that the goal of transit is not profit.

    I don't know why you think the stimulus should be "bare bones".  I don't really see the point of trimming stuff that should get funding.  I am also not sure what you think the money for Amtrak will go to if not jobs, or what them not being profitable has to do with providing jobs through stimulus.  I don't think the goal of the stimulus is to get companies to make money hand over fist.  The goal is to put people to work.  Building tracks/trains is as effective at that as building roads/cars.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by CST on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:00:41 PM EST
    I think most people are somewhat pragmatic about it.  They know they will have to wait a few months for a lot of this to kick in, but they can't afford to wait years.

    FYI - the infrastructure funding is not just for "potential" projects that won't start for a few years.  There are a lot of projects that have been planned, designed, and are now on hold b/c there is no money to build.  So infrastructure spending is both short and long term relief.  Obviously if some of it is for new transit/bridges/etc... that will take longer to go to construction.  However, there are plenty of people employed during the planning/design process as well.

    Parent

    People need to remeber (none / 0) (#9)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 10:40:45 AM EST
    That Bill Clinton was at around 35% for a good portion of his first year (by around March), I'm just hoping Obama can stay ahead of the "Clinton Curve" and not lose Congress when he hand;es Health Care.

    I don't recall BC's rating ever (none / 0) (#13)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:57:13 PM EST
    getting that low--do you have a link?  I'm not doubting you, I'm genuinely curious.

    The closest I could find was this, which pegged him at a low of 51% in August of '93.  

    Parent

    Dang! (none / 0) (#14)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:57:39 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    Oh no... (none / 0) (#17)
    by JThomas on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:50:25 PM EST
    all these cultists approving of Obama.

    When when is a cult no longer a cult?...when it is 69% of the country..then it is the vast majority.

    And the other 30%? Maybe they are the cult.

    Parent

    Bling Made of Steele (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:11:21 PM EST
    The Obama-backed stimulus, he said, "is just a wish list from a lot of people who have been on the sidelines for years.. to get a little bling, bling."

    Steele, before ducking into an elevator on on the second floor of the Capitol: "I thought it was very, very interesting. It looks like he's trying to very hard to shore up support from Democrats" because "he's upside-down" in the polls.

    link via TPM

    Wonder how low Steele's approval ratings are especially after the latest allegations.

    Well, it depends (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:38:22 PM EST
    Wonder how low Steele's approval ratings are especially after the latest allegations

    The person making the allegations is in prison for fraud (an honesty crime) and is looking for leniency.  Are the allegations true?  Maybe, but a convicted liar looking to get out of jail early is not a good person to rely on.

    Parent

    Question Still Stands (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:52:01 PM EST
    Despite your nonsequitur.

    Parent
    Your favorite word (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:00:26 PM EST
    Not sure how it's a non sequitur when you specifically threw in the allegations against Steele.  I was trying to have a rational conversation with you, but I should have known better.

    Parent
    Never too late to learn, jbindc! (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 05:24:44 PM EST


    Parent
    I know (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 05:26:03 PM EST
    I keep telling myself not to feed the troll, but sometimes I just can't help it.

    Parent
    Even more than that... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 05:33:18 PM EST
    my mom taught me not to ever give schoolyard bullies any attention - that is what they crave (look at me! look at me!). ignore ignore ignore.

    Parent
    As usual (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 05:41:33 PM EST
    you are correct.  :)

    Parent
    How Moronic (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:47:06 PM EST
    The question I asked had nothing do do with the guilt or innocence of Steele or about the snitch testimony that got him under investigation.

    The question I asked is whether or not Steele's polls are now also "upside-down" because of the investigation.

    The implicit question behind my basically rhetorical question is why would Steele be pointing to Obama's poll ratings when the GOP congress is at an all time low and Steele himself must have taken a big hit in ratings because of the ongoing investigation.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 05:00:39 PM EST
    I don't think they do polling on the Chair of the Republican National Committee (I doubt many people even know who he is nor cares who he is), so I doubt his poll numbers could drop.

    And how shocking!!  The head of the RNC is pointing to Obama's dropping ratings!

    This means that your question was the moronic one.

    Parent

    Glad To Know That YOu Are In Line (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 05:16:08 PM EST
    With the GOPers... must be all that bling..

    Parent
    Go away troll (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 05:23:43 PM EST
    you're starting to bore me.

    Parent
    Lol (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 05:31:20 PM EST
    Sorry but you are the one trolling..  too much koolaid will do it.

    Usually trolling is clear when a wingnut defends his own, Steele in this case.

    But your unholy alliance with the wingnuts make you certified.

    Parent

    Obama campaigning again... (none / 0) (#22)
    by birdsie98 on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:08:58 PM EST
    I agree. Im growing so disgusted of Obama. Its absolutely ridiculous how he's campaigning again and holding rallies  - out of control.

    Approval Ratings | 34 comments (34 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment