Jobless rate, poll numbers spell doom for Reagan, er, I mean Obama
November 6th, 2009 at 01:46pm Pat Cunningham
Follow me on this:
Unemployment figures released today are said in some quarters to portend a one-term presidency for Barack Obama.
Another harbinger of tough-sledding for the president looms in the likelihood that his approval rating in the Gallup poll will soon slip below 50 percent. (It’s at 52 percent as this is written.)
But before we write Obama’s political obituary, let’s put these numbers in historical perspective.
First of all, we have the fact that the current rate of joblessness is the highest since 1983. If I recall correctly, that was the third year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency. And in the following year, he was elected to a second term.
Nor should we read too much into Obama’s approval rating falling below 50 percent (if, in fact, that happens). History shows that two out of the three presidents who won re-election in the past three decades (Reagan and Bill Clinton) both saw their Gallup approval numbers slip below 50 percent during their first year in office.
Mind you, I’m not saying that Obama won’t face tough challenges in a re-election bid in 2012. Indeed, he might not make it. But let’s not forget how grim the situation looked for Reagan before he won a second term.
Entry Filed under: Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama
15 Comments Add your own
1. expdoc | November 6th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Of course Reagan didn’t try to take over the American economy and force the vast majority of the populace to overhaul a healthcare delivery system that they are perfectly happy with.
If Obama wants a chance in 2012 he better pray that health care reform magically turns into real reform rather than a power grab and that economic reovery anchor that is cap and trade never sees the light of day. Oh and there’s that Afganistan/ war Iran wants to nuc. Israel thing going on as well. He will definitely have to decide about Afghanistan before 2012…. right?
2. Craig Knauss | November 6th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Doc,
Those of us who were of voting age remember that Reagan had a plate full also. He had the Cold War, which he was accelerating, Lebanon, Libya, Grenada, a rapidly increasing national debt (added $1 trillion each of his terms), a rapidly increasing deficit ($42 billion to about $365 billion), the usual number of scandals (such as his EPA thugs [who went to jail]), and all the other trimmings. He was getting criticized by the right for spending too much money because he had pledged to reduce federal spending but dramatically increased it. He was criticized by the left for military budgets that were out of control. He spent something like $120 million each for the 100 semi-functional B-1 bombers, and at least $350 million each to refloat 4 obsolete battleships (for only 2 years). He had $500 hammers and $1000 coffee pots. And yet he persevered. So, Doc, remember, NO PRESIDENT HAS HAD A CLEAN SLATE.
3. expdoc | November 6th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Craig,
Couldn’t agree more. But then why does the current version keep whining about GWB and the mess he inherited? Shouldn’t he just focus on the future and lead……….?
4. snuss | November 6th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Perhaps it is because most Americans don’t like his Socialist, bigger government, agenda. His thin skin and elitist’s ego makes him unwilling to compromise with those with whom he disagrees. His attacks on the Tea Party, anti-Obamacare protesters, Conservative talk radio, and Fox News are perfect examples of the Far-Leftist agenda, to demonize and demean their opponents.
5. matt W | November 6th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I guess if it makes you feel better that Obama convinced us all that spending $787 Billion would reduce unemployment rates, which have now risen more than 3 million more people, then use the ole Reagan analogy. If not, don’t forget to use the old “It’s Bush’s Fault” excuse!
6. Craig Knauss | November 6th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Doc,
Yes he should lead. But let’s remember that people, such as yourself, are blaming Obama for everything, after only 10 months, despite his trying to fix 8 YEARS worth of Bush II’s missteps. These same people turn around and say that Reagan’s problems, after 18 months in office, were STILL Carter’s 4 years worth of missteps. Where’s the fairness? Reagan inherited a much smaller problem and was given way more time to fix it.
snuss,
Please tell us just who is “most Americans”? Do you really think someone like you can speak for “most Americans”? If so, run for office. I’d love to see how well you do. You couldn’t do any worse than Newt Ginrich did. LMAO
7. expdoc | November 6th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I’m not blaming him for anything. I am questioning his far left agenda and worried about the damage it will do to our country.
8. Neftali | November 6th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Newt Gingrich was House Minority Whip for 4 years, and Speaker of the House for 4 years. I’d say snuss would do rather well for himself following in Newt’s footsteps in running for office.
I’d vote for snuss.
As far as the post goes, Reagan rescued the economy by applying Conservative principles. Yet you liberals say Obama is going to rescue the economy by pushing radical left agenda? That’s funny. Will you guys be here all week? Don’t forget to tip your waitress!
9. snuss | November 6th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
snuss,
Please tell us just who is “most Americans”?
Well, Craig, since you asked:
This is what the majority of Americans think.
Right Direction or Wrong Track
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
The majority of voters (61%) continue to believe the nation is heading down the wrong track, down slightly from last week. This finding has remained fairly consistent after dropping nine points from the week prior to the president’s inauguration.
Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track
Direction of Country
Poll Date Right Direction Wrong Track Spread
RCP Average 10/22 - 11/1 37.5 56.0 -18.5
Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html
Clear enough, or do I need to draw you a picture?
10. Richard C | November 7th, 2009 at 2:46 am
Reagan created jobs but it took him three years to do it, the biggest military build up in modern history. Something a democratic president was not done since FDR. So where will the jobs come from in the year prior to the 2012 election?
11. Pat Cunningham | November 7th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Snuss: As I’ve pointed out time and time and time again, Rasmussen polls are highly suspect. Their methodogy is dubious, and their results often are what the people in the polling business call “outliers.”
12. Craig Knauss | November 7th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Gee, snuss, didn’t worldnutdaily have a poll you could reference? How about the Arian Nation? They would have as much credibility.
13. Craig Knauss | November 7th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Neftali says, “I’d say snuss would do rather well for himself following in Newt’s footsteps in running for office. I’d vote for snuss.” I’m sure somebody would, somewhere. But did you forget how many primaries Newt Ginrich did NOT win when he decided to go national? (Did he win even one?) And those were in his own party. So my guess is snuss would get at least two votes, his and yours. And probably not a lot more. So, snuss for dog catcher! It does have a ring to it.
14. snuss | November 8th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Pat and Craig certainly have the Far-Left’s reading comprehension problem.
You both ignored the fact that I also cited the Real Clear Politics poll averages for the same issue, which show 56% believe the Obama Administration is on the wrong track. Even the DailyKos poll agrees.
Dates Right track Wrong track Spread
Daily Kos/R2000 10/26 - 10/29 42 54 -12
15. Pat Cunningham | November 8th, 2009 at 9:21 am
SNuss: You’re still having problems reading and understanding public opinion polls.
In this case, you confuse polls measuring opinions on whether the country is on the right track or the wrong track with polls on Obama’s approval rating.
The right-track/wrong-track polls DO NOT measure whether people think Obama is on the right or wrong track. Rather, they measure whether people think the country as a whole is on the right track or wrong track.
Consider, for example, the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll. In that survey, a majority of respondents approve of Obama’s job performance — and a majority thinks the country is on the wrong track. Obviously, those majorities reflect the measurement of two different things.
A more dramatic example of this pertains in the DailyKos/Research 2000 poll, which you cited in your comment. In the latest edition of that poll, 55 percent approve of Obama’s job performance while 57 percent think the country is on the wrong track.
The moral of the story, SNuss, is that lots of people don’t blame Obama for the wrong track on which the country finds itself. Indeed, in most polls, majorities approve of Obama’s effort to get the country on the right track.
One last note: You referred to “EVEN the DailyKos poll,” as if that poll is not to be trusted because it’s commissioned by an outlet with which you generally disagree. But, as I’ve explained here on many occasions, the DailyKos poll, just like the Fox News poll, is conducted by a reputable independent firm. All the major media use independent companies for their polls. If any of these companies were caught cooking the numbers to suit the ideological biases of their clients, they would soon lose their reputation for reliability. One of your favorite polls, Rasmussen, has no major media clients, mainly because it’s methodology is problematic, which is why its results often are at variance with those of most other polls.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed