Modally speaking of course. And those are utterly different modes so the title of this post is of course nonsense. But, we do have some interesting data.
This is from the Gallup Pole of weekly job approval by demographic groups. The main thing this poll shows is that Obama has high job approval ratings, and that his job approval ratings are high in relation to other presidents at this moment in their terms.
George Bush's rankings, for his first term, dropped as all President's ratings seem to do, in an almost identical pattern as Obama's. Then, when Cheney/Bush allowed the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to happen, and totally botched the response, the Bush rating went through the roof, to nearly the level that many popular presidents have coming into office, with the highest numbers for Bush and Obama being about the same. Subsequently, Bush's ratings dropped precipitously except when he would invade something.
Overall, Obama has a better showing than bush because he is maintaining high numbers without killing lots of Americans to do so.
Bill Clinton's ratings started out lower than Obama's and fluctuated considerably throughout his two terms, but mostly trending upwards following the Republican Revolution associated with the midterm elections.
George Bush Senior had ratings that ranged across to board, almost as a chimera of his son's ratings and Obamas, and maintained these reasonable ratings for the first half of his term, the experienced a precipitous drop for the second half of his term.
Regan's pattern of ratings is almost identical to Obama's so far, but Regan's drop was to a lower level and some of his early high rankings were owing to invading dome country or another, IIRC. (above data from here)
The most recent gallop poll breaks down Obama's ratings at four points over his term so far into demographic categories. His overall approval rating changed from 52/3 up until early November to 49 with the onslaught of anti-heath care reform rhetoric, liberal frustration with inaction (which is largely a myth .... stupid liberals) and concerns about the war. This is beyond the margin of error which I assume is 2% for this sort of pol.
Women have always liked Obama more then man and the drop for women is 3 points in contrast with 5 points for me. Younger people like him more than older people and the age-related difference is probably the largest, however, the drop in older folks is minimal and larger with younger folks who, in my opinion, are morel likely to be influenced by anti-health care TV ads.
Obama's ratings in the western part of the country are the same now as in the beginning of the term. the largest drop is in the eastern part of the country, and the south never liked him as much as other parts of the country. Him being an uppity black liberal guy, and all.
And i do not LIE when I say that.
Obama is extraordinarily popular among "black" then "nonwhite" and also "hispanic" with Hispanic foks increasing their amount of approval, blacks not changing, non-whites and whites dropping. I assume the most important drop here is the white-liberal-youth drop.
There is a positive and very strong correlation between education level and approval rating for Obama for those with some college or more, but High School or less is also very high. I assume the white-liberal-professional and not-white-lower SES interactions explain this kinda-U-shaped pattern.
His approval rating stands at 59 percent with the lowest income class, 49 with the next highest class, 44 with the next highest (upper middle class) and 48 with the richest.
The poll also gives data on party affiliation and ideology which are largely as expected.
Church attendance interacts with approval in an interesting way. THe most churchy people collectively score Obama at 41, semi-churchy people at 49, and those of the "Seldom/Never" group at 55.
Married people rank Obama collectively at a 42, not married at 58. This is probably also a metaphenomenon of ethnicity, class, religiosity, and region.
- Log in to post comments
Then, when Cheney/Bush allowed the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to happen, and totally botched the response, the Bush rating went through the roof, to nearly the level that many popular presidents have coming into office, with the highest numbers for Bush and Obama being about the same.
I know this will never pass the filter, but WOW Mr Laden, how trutherliscious of you!
"younger folks who, in my opinion, are morel likely to be influenced by anti-health care TV ads. "
The folks without health care are the most likely to be mad at Obama about health care?
*scratches head*
But then, I never understand why people making less than 250,000 a year like republicans either.
Also, apparently if I were black and living in Seattle I could be more pro-Obama, but that's about it.
"Married people rank Obama collectively at a 42, married at 58."
Wat?
Spiv- it should read "Married people rank Obama collectively at a 42, UNmarried at 58"
{self-edited very inappropriate joke was here}
"he is maintaining high numbers without killing lots of Americans to do so"
This vice never ceases to amaze me. I thought non american lives counted too. More of them die in wars launched by the USA than americans, actually.
And anyway, many people have been killed at war under this administration. The difference is only that we haven't seen a newly launched war with lots of patriotic rethoric to go with it.
This vice never ceases to amaze me. I thought non american lives counted too. More of them die in wars launched by the USA than americans, actually.
No shit.
They count, as in they count, but I specifically chose "American lives" for a reason. Thanks for the opportunity for me to elaborate.
For decades at various times in this country's past we have been engaged in secret and/or unofficial wars that involve very few American casualties, including proxy wars, and lots and lots of non-American people die in them and these numbers to not affect presidential popularity at all. This is not a small piece of our foreign policy. Most countries in Central America. Angola. Afghanistan I, Chad, various earlier versions of the Congo War, etc.
So you need to re-adjust your sanctimony a little in this case. Thank you very much.
Real Truthers know the attack on the WTC was not merely "allowed" to happen, but was a total inside job, and in fact G.W. Bush PERSONALLY depressed the button that triggered the demolition of WTC building 7.
Furthermore, Dick Cheney PERSONALLY depressed the button which TOTALLY ERASED WTC building 13 FROM ALL LIVING MEMORY!
Llewelly... I had to work to not make this argument part of the blog post. Just for fun.
Not if you're an American reporter.
(If non-American lives did affect the popularity of American politicians, we could have gotten rid of many of the worst American politicians. Which is perhaps why those lives don't matter.)
Yeah Mike H., despite being warned by the outgoing Clinton administration that Bin Laden was planning to strike the US and that the FBI was monitoring the to-be hijackers at flying school, the Bush/Cheney machine did a great job preventing the 911 attacks.
Liberal frustration with inaction is a little misleading. Liberal frustration with action in exactly the wrong direction would be more appropriate.
Patriot act, civil liberties, LGBT rights, environmental policy, not leading on...well...much of anything, but especially health care reform, Trickle Down Economics, etc.
What a pity these polls never find a clear way to ask why people feel dissatisfaction with a given president.
People see what they want to see, and they tend to compare in their minds another president's 8 years with this president's 8 months. People also forget that the economic crisis was not supposed to be number one priority but it was. And still is.
I'm not saying that I'm perfectly happy but I really don't see the point in turning a lack of a grasp of the realities of the situation into helpless whining.
Fair weather liberals. Jeesh.
Jeese this guy and the ?Liberal congress has spent more money in ten months than every administration combined since Washinton. Can't make up his mind about anything.
His hand picked general requested 100,000 troops in Afghanistan Obama's crowd told the pentagon to make under 50,000. In order to control the country we need units in ever province to stabilize the nation. He is destroying the foundations of this nation founded on Judeo christain principles. All liberals should be forced to read the constitution, if it is not in there we do not need it. SIASSL
Lightcrosser, reread your first two sentences, each in the context of the other. If you don't laugh, you're useless (or rightfully embarrassed).
Lightcrosser is a Poe.
Either a Poe or an idiot.
I'm not sure what numbers of past Presidents you were using, but if you look down the right side of this page from Gallup, your statement is flatly contradicted. I'd certainly agree that Bush's numbers were artificially and unjustifiably inflated post 9/11, but only Clinton's numbers for his first November were lower than Obama's have been this month.
Given the poor economy, we can't read too much into the low numbers, though. Presidents' approval ratings go up and down with the economy regardless of whether they deserve praise for the good or blame for the bad. Even so, your statement that I quoted is pretty divorced from reality.
Jason, I used the same data but instead of taking one poll I used the trends across the entire time period. What you have now in Washington is an approval rating that jumped down at the end of three months of Republican screaming, lots of people mad at Obama because he wants to have health care reform, other people mad at Obama because the Senate has been stalled by the Republicans, etc. If you look at the weekly data for all of these presidents you see a lot of variation. There is no reason that a single week (or month) compared across the decades is a valid comparison. Look at the cycle over the entire first year and a half and make the comparison that way.
I gave a link to the data I used.
Even so, your statement that I quoted is pretty divorced from reality.
NO, the statements I made were married to the data I linked to. Telling me that my statements are divorced from reality because you have a different (and in my view not ideal) measure from the data is a little bit over the top and not what you want me to be reading while I'm drinking my first cup of coffee.
Sorry that I didn't get back to this sooner. I also apologize for missing the link you made to historical approval rating trends.
When you said, "at this moment in their terms," I could only interpret that as meaning close to the same time of year in their first term. Given that interpretation, your statement that Obama had approval ratings 'high in relation to other presidents' was contradicted by facts, even the ones you linked. The graphs at that page do show a lot of variation, but Obama's ratings have hovered in the mid to low 50's for months. I don't see how, using either data, you arrive at the conclusion that those results are high in relation to anyone but Clinton among elected presidents in early in their first term.
Influence can be defined as the power exerted over the minds and behavior of others. A power that can affect, persuade and cause changes to someone or something. In order to influence people, you first need to discover what is already influencing them. What makes them tick? What do they care about? We need some leverage to work with when weâre trying to change how people think and behave.
latest trend