Obama approval rating down to 59%
 

Via Rasmussen. It that bad? No, 59% is still pretty good. But just for fun, let's see where the Most Divisive and Worst President in American History was around this point in time:

ABC News/Wash Post Poll: 55%
Fox News: 55%
Gallup: 57%

Hmm, not too dissimilar. Who knew. But what about disapproval numbers? Obama is at 39%, that's good, right? What about America's Most Hated President ever? After stealing the election of 2000, Americans must have been really ticked off, right?

ABC News/Wash Post Poll: 23%
Fox News: 16%
Gallup: 25%

Hmmm.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm

There you have it, folks. Obama is officially the worst president ever. If his approval ratings should soar to near-record highs in September or so, this will confirm it.

Americans are coming down to earth, realizing that he is a slick-talking politician, just like the rest of them.

If he gets re-elected in 2012, I think we should call it the Second Coming.

And Cali will have his second orgasm of the century.

Was Rasmussen the lowest source you could find?

Gallup has 64% approval 22% disapproval; CBS News has 62% approval 15% disapproval, and Kos has 69% favorability 26% unfavorability.

Rasmussen is the one I've stuck with for most of the election season, for better or for worse. Sorry it doesn't fit the narrative you'd prefer.

PS. I believe approval/disapproval is different from favorability/unfavorability, so you can toss that Kos one for purposes of comparison.

lol

ha! Exactly.

Don't you see? "Obama" and "George" both have 5 letters. Obama's numbers will therefore exactly mimick Bush's.

It's an amusing irony that Bush had similar numbers to Obama, considering the very different circumstances under which they took office.

Drawing a direct comparison between the completed presidency of Bush and the infant presidency of Obama is for the pea-brained. Not surprised Cali would go there, but I'm a little disappointed in AA.

A lot of people in this country were disgusted with Clinton and pardons-gate when Bush took over, so that probably contributed to feeling good about the changeover.

Honestly, I'm not sure who is more in charge of this country--Obama or Nancy Pelosi.

I think Pelosi is working quickly towards becoming the name and face that the GOP uses to rally the troops (the same role that Gingrich came to play for the democrats).

Dude, YOU made the comparison. I mocked it.

AA was obviously being sarcastic. Sorry it didn't fit the narrative you'd prefer.

No, I simply showed how their numbers at this phase of their presidencies were similar. You extended it to the absurd, "Dude".

No, really?

In other words, you showing the similarities of the infant presidency of Obama and the presidency of Bush, to which you referred in the completed sense (unless he had already earned the title "Most Divisive and Worst President in American History" by February 2001).

Making, as it were, a "direct comparison."

If a little dramatic hyperbole was enough to make you entirely miss the forest for the trees, then I do deeply regret the misunderstanding. That you would zero in on that--ignoring the plainly presented other data which is clearly a comparison of their first weeks--is a little perplexing. Surely a person as intelligent as yourself can see the actual comparison I was making. Heck, even Mike Waters got it.

I doubt very much that you deeply regret the misunderstanding. As for the point itself, it seems to me you had no point. In fact, I notice that you often go to great lengths to avoid actually making a point. It's part of your charm.

You treat the supplied pieces of evidence as though they suggest a self-evident thought: that Americans are becoming disillusioned now that they are seeing the Obama machine in action. Another person (myself among them) may look at those numbers and hear another message: that the numbers tell us absolutely nothing this early in the game. As long as evidence can have such diverse interpretations, you are not absolved of your responsibility of stating your thesis.

Unless, of course, you don't really care if anybody follows your train of thought. If that happens to be the case, however, one must wonder why you're still talking. I doubt you believe you will win anybody over this late in the game; likely, you just like hearing the sound of your own voice. Either way, I'll not apologize for your insufficient command of written English.

Thanks. I'll try to state my "thesis" more clearly, maybe with footnotes. (This is still an Internet message board, right? Someone check for me.)

In any case, I'm genuinely sorry to have gotten you all riled up, so I apologize to you for the pea-brained comment. (Cali still has a pea-brain though). You and I had no beef before, and I really don't need any new adversaries. Not that there are many left around anymore.

Cheers.

Inheriting the worst economic crisis in 70+ years from his predecessor, along with a sprinkle of cheap populist politics on the part of Rush Limbaugh & the GOP, have nothing to do with the President's ratings.

LOL

As for narratives, Tex, can you give us your best guess that parallels Bush's rise to the peak of his presidency in 9 months, post 9-11, with nearly the whole world behind him & US, followed by the long slide based on an enormous catalog of idiotic statements and missteps?

Fair enough.

Actually, all I was really highlighting was the irony of the start of these two presidencies. Bush came into office under a cloud, Obama on top of one. Yet their approval ratings end up being pretty much the same after a number of weeks. Pretty amusing, in my book.

Approval rating of 76% this week.

Golly.

You are really stretching, Tex.

Sure, the elections of Obama and Bush were quite different. Bush effectively won the election through the courts, Obama won a clear mandate. You then want to suggest that a parallel in their respective popularity so soon into Obama's respective presidency shows that Obama has really fallen. This is just silly.

What you fail to note are the other circumstances the two men faced upon taking office. Obama was faced with the threat of economic collapse, war being fought in two nations concurrently, the largest loss of jobs in over two decades, etc. Perhaps the rosy circumstances you paint for Obama's entrance into the presidency are... overstated?

That and the fact that almost all other opinion polls seem to indicate much higher support right now for Obama suggest that, once again, you don't have a point.

Rasmussen says 60%.

That said, it's no surprise he's more popular than his stimulus package, given that it's nothing of the kind.

Gallup reports 59% today.

ABC News' pollster says Obama's poll average is strong (68%), but also almost exactly matches the average for the last nine newly-elected presidents (67%).

He also notes the strong partisan undercurrents represented in these polls since Bill Clinton. Interesting read.

He's worse. It took Bush years to get to this level. It's taken Obama less than 2 months.

And he's making it worse. What is your point? Creating more government jobs is the solution out of our economic woes? Forcing contractors to only use union workers is the solution out of our economic woes? I think we can agree that the mortgage crisis brought us here. And who supported the lending of money to those who couldn't afford a home.......the Dems (Dodd/Rangel).

Show me one recount that would have changed the votes in Florida and the outcome of the election. BTW, wasn't it the Florida supreme court who initially inserted themselves. That's when the election became a legal exercise.

remind me again why we are in this economic mess? what brought us here? Bush or the Dem controlled congress the previous two years. Who writes the checks? The white house or congress?

No excuses. You didn't cut Bush any slack after 9/11 which he inherited from Clinton. Deal with your own mess created largely by both parties.

Are you for real, exie? I don't think you have a clue about how the government actually runs. Are you under the impression that Congress just writes checks and the executive can't do anything about it? Really? Are you under the impression that the economic mess was caused by the last 2 years of having Democrats control the House and the Senate?

You amuse me, exie. Always good for a laugh.

Rasmussen reports Obama has been holding at 56% for 4 days.

The difference between "strongly approve" and "strongly disapprove" has narrowed to +6 from +28, after inauguration.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/...ch_10_2009.jpg

Also, in the wake of the "who's leading Republicans" nonsense, 68% of Republicans see their party as leaderless. Only 2% identify Rush Limbaugh as their leader.

Only a 3% drop, when dealing with the largest financial crisis since the great depression? That is remarkable. Well done, Mr. President.

At least you are coming around to the notion that it is preferrable that your party be leaderless as opposed to being run by Limbaugh. If only the 2% surveyed didn't include Michael Steele and the rest of the so-called "leadership" of your leaderless and rudderless party.

Yeah, you just go ahead and ignore the 150% increase in "strongly disapprove" in only 6 weeks' time.

What's remarkable isn't that the "strongly disapprove" number is where it is, but that it ever was where it was originally.

How can you strongly disapprove of a president's performance before they have even taken office? I'm guessing the original starting point was the disappointment over his bungled oath of office. ;)
Regardless, the trend of significance isn't the strongly approves, it's the other end of the spectrum.

Given the alarming levels of pseudo-religious fervor that accompanied Obama into office, I would fully expect the strongly approves would remain rock steady for a long period of time, regardless of actual performance.

Really? You did note, didn't you, that Obama's "strongly approve" and "strongly disapprove" numbers didn't start at zero on day one, right? Do you think all public opinion for approval/disapproval starts at a baseline of zero upon any politician taking office? Did Obama just have such a remarkable first few minutes that his "strongly approve" numbers immediately jumped over 50 points?

Amusing.

I should have known since you don't even understand basic rounding rules that you would be incapable of understanding the data Tex posted.