The Gallup poll of Barack Obama's job approval for August 4-6 of this year was an interesting one.

In this poll, he had 58% approval, 36% disapproval. Not a particularly interesting number, it has to be said. I mention it for one very specific reason. It was the last time Obama's poll numbers were over 56% or under 50%.

For almost 3 months now, the daily Gallup poll of Obama's approval has been between these two numbers, averaging around 53%

While the number has bounced around a lot, sometimes hitting 50% for a few days then bouncing up, sometimes hitting 56 and then dropping down, it has in effect been static for close to three months. Considering that in the three month period preceding this (May to July) the number went from a high of 68 to a low of 54, this is a remarkably stable figure, especially when you consider that the last three months have not exactly been a period where no major issues have been in the public eye. From the high profile fight with Fox, to the continuing healthcare debate, to winning the Nobel prize, Obama has been constantly in the news, and constantly in a controversial position.

So what does this stability in figures mean?

My opinion is that one thing this means is that the honeymoon period is over. The people who had previously said they would give him the benefit of the doubt have stopped doing so. What we are left with, now that the New President Smell has worn off, is the people who actually support him (whether that is for policy reasons, demographic reasons, or just his own innate likability). It's a number that is, to within a percentage point or so, essentially the same as the percentage of the electorate who voted for him, and that brings me to my second conclusion.

The bottoming out of this figure at a low mark of 50% and an average for the last few months of 53% suggests that in essence public opinion of President Obama and public opinion of Candidate Obama are roughly the same. Around the same percentage of people liked Candidate Obama as like President Obama. Around the same number of people oppose President Obama as opposed Candidate Obama. While I'm sure there have been people who voted for him and are disillusioned by him, their numbers seem to be replaced by people who didn't vote for him but who have been charmed by him.

So, if my surmises are correct, what does that mean for Obama's agenda?

It's both good and bad news, in a way. One thing it does mean is that his base aren't opposed to his current course of action, and the people who voted for him aren't opposed either. However, it also means that his opponents aren't being won over. Opinion of him is as polarized as it was when he became president, with those who disliked him just as opposed and those who liked him just as supportive.

It means his mandate is still there, as long as he works to keep it.

This all is, of course, my opinion. Do other people read it the same way?

I generally agree for the most part, although I would add in a bit of a qualification to your analysis. There are going to be a group of people who disapprove Obama to the left (5-10% of the population), most of whom voted for him regardless and few who would actually vote third party in the next cycle as a result of disenchantment (and would still likely vote Obama). Similarly, there's also gotta be a group of McCain voters, the 'swing-voters', moderate/liberal Republicans, centrist independents and some conservative democrats, making up 6-7% of the electorate who still approve of Obama at this point (or don't disapprove, at least). Additionally, there's probably the 2-3% of Obama voters that are actually disillusioned with him who could vote for the GOP the next time around, as well as the demographic changes over the country (younger dem voters replacing older GOP voters, minority growth, religious affiliation separations) changing the electorate slowly.

Basically, it's not all quite as neat as depicted. But a good read. And in my opinion, Obama is sitting still in quite a good position politically.

I think it has stabilized because people are still waiting for Obama to actually accomplish something.

They also had a poll out that showed that over 60% of Americans still blamed the economy on George W. Bush.

So they are giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. They aren't blaming him for the recession but if there are no improvements you will see the Democratic base slowly turn on him.

Right now.. around 80% of Democrats still support Obama. The fact is.. until those numbers change you can't get much further below 50-55% than it already is.

Why would people blame Bush for the economy? Even if it was due to policies enacted by his administration, he wasn't the sole figure behind it.

Youre also forgetting the democrats took control of congress in 2006...exactly when the recession was starting. You can't blame Bush for everything.



And since the democrats control Congress and the WH right now, they can pass any plan they want, and they have. But of course they dont work.



...And also, Rasmussen has Obama's approval numbers at 48%.








I see a republican in the white house in 2012

Not me. If they run a hard-liner (like Palin) they'll have most of the electorate vote aginst them. If they run a moderate (like McCain) they'll lose the support of the hard-liners and lose the election to a split vote.

Basically, until the Republicans throw out the hard-liners or America is taken over by religious extremists the Republicans are politically screwed.

Edit: Or the Republicans can return to the Left.

yes, Rasmussen have consistently had approval ratings for Obama about 5% below that of other pollsters. It's called a house effect.

but even in the Rasmussen polling, there's only one point of movement between August and now. And only two points between July and now.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...trust_on_issues

Obama won because of independents. There are not enough of these lunatic liberals in America to get him reelected. The GOP lost cuz of a moderate conservative, if we had Mitt Romney on our ballot we would have surely won.


Take New Jersey for example, one of the bluest of blue states. A republican candidate is leading in a governorship election! Even though Obama has made several trips to campaign for the democrat!

I knew this was coming! Rasmussen isnt a "legit" source cause it shows Obama is losing support!


Maybe its just that the other polls are favorable towards obama, since they poll more democrats that independents and republicans. Rasmussen has 33% of every party voters.

So Obama won because of independent voters, showing that there aren't enough people of a strong left political persuasion to elect someone without independents...

and your answer to this for the Republicans is to run someone of a strong right political persuasion?

If independents are, as you said, so important, why pick a candidate who doesn't appeal to independents?

How does Obama appeal to Independent voters? How?


Republicans are voting for a Independent candidate in the 23rd District. Almost no republicans have endorsed the actual republican. The independent is going to win, cuz of conservatives and independents uniting


Independents will be voting for conservative candidates that believe in low taxes, small government, and traditional values.

You knew it was coming, and yet you somehow managed to misinterpret it.

I didn't say "Rasmussen isnt a "legit" source cause it shows Obama is losing support!" or anything like that. What I said was that they have a house effect. When you take the house effect into account, they're relatively accurate pollsters. Also they've had Obama within two points of his current approval rating for four months, that's not really losing support.




if Rasmussen do have 33% democrat, 33% Republican, 33% independent, then 1) that explains why their numbers are different and 2) that reinforces my point about them having a house effect. America isn't divided 33% Democrat 33% Republican 33% independent. Gallup keep track of party affiliation here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx

so an accurate split would be Republicans in the high twenties, Democrats in the low to mid thirties, and independents in the high thirties.

if independents were generally for "low taxes, small government, and traditional values", why wouldn't they be republicans?

And if what independents want is "low taxes, small government, and traditional values", why did they vote for Obama?

I think you're doing a fair bit of wishful thinking here.

Independents fell for Obama's "hope and change". They thought they would get a "clean" politician. They were wrong big time. They thought Obama would lower their taxes, he hasnt. They thought he would limit government, he defiantly hasn't.

Republicans and conservatives in Congress fight for what Independents believe in, low taxes and limited government. Independents and Republicans who are conservative will be elected, and I guarantee everyone, that the Stock Market will jump.

again with the wishful thinking. It's a little childish to assume that of course independents really want what you want and they were just confused by that nasty Mr Obama.

By the way, the word diffident means hesitant. Are you sure that's what you meant to say?

just some food for thought...

comfort food for you, I'm sure. Not particularly nutritious, though.

What exactly are you thinking that map shows?

America was literally split down the middle between republicans and democrats in the 2008 election. But America is starting to wake up and see the light, and is starting to lean right again (Take NJ for example)

1) that's not what "literally" means.
2) Yep, right down the middle, 365 electoral votes to 173.



yes, let's take New Jersey for example. Right now it's a statistical dead heat. What do you think this is an example of, exactly?

See the light? Christ, you'd think Obama was throwing people into forced labour camps.

As most Americans do, I really dont like the electoral election system. It should go by number of counties, or popular vote.



Its New Jersey, even for a republican to have a chance there is a miracle. It is one of the bluest of blue states. As seen in the map above.

well, except for the fact that Republicans held the governor's mansion from 1994 to 2002. I'm sure you know who Christine Todd Whitman is.

Also, New Jersey voted for George H W Bush, Reagan (twice), Ford, and Nixon (twice). The idea of it being "one of the bluest of blue states" is silly.

So going by that you supported Al Gore becoming President? He did win the popular vote after all.

A popular vote will never happen, because of the amount of fraud that occurs in elections nowadays. Pres. Bush won under a electoral system, therefore you cant say that Al Gore should have won.

You just said that you support a move to a popular vote and that the electoral system is something that you really don't like.

Your exact quote "As most Americans do, I really dont like the electoral election system. It should go by number of counties, or popular vote."

So if it was like you would like it to be then Al Gore would have won.

I like county by county vote better. Popular vote would be too easy to corrupt and fraud.

Fair enough then... I think the electoral system is fine, but I don't think it should be based on a winner take all system, instead you should get a certain amount of points from each state based on proportionally how much of the popular vote you got. For example, if a state had 20 electoral votes and 1 candidate got 60% of the vote he would get 12 of the electoral votes and the other candidate would get 8 of the electoral votes.

Please name one Bush policy that caused this recession?

Not trying to burst a bubble before it got ridiculous?

In comment on the OP:

I think the honeymoon period is over. I also don't think Obama ever had a mandate for is agenda. He had a mandate for "change." Since is campaign deliberately avoided what they meant by "change" it was left to be defined in different ways by individuals. So of course you would expect to see his number decline as he proposes programs that most Americans disagree with.

You mean like trying to block attempts to curb sub-prime home mortgages by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

If that's the case then you should be blaming Democrats like Barney Frank and Not Bush who ACTUALLY did try to regulate sub-prime lending by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

you're acting like his entire campaign was just the word "change" in big letters. You do know that he had a manifesto, a fairly detailed platform, and an agenda for what he planned to do when elected, right?

I'm actually blaming the congressmen who repealed Glass-Steagal, but the administration should have brought more attention to the problem.

Bush can't really be blamed for that one. He wasn't president yet.

I really don't think that the G-L-B act was the cause of the crisis at all, to be honest. It's worth noting that the banks that become "bank holding companies" did better throughout the crisis, and that many of the investment banks were turned into bank holding companies as part of their rescue.

I blame sub-prime lending (in general) and the the manner in which banks bought and sold promissory notes without doing due diligence as to the value of the underlying asset as well as some of the legal issues surrounding the transfer of promissory notes.

I do. But that's because I dig deeper than that average voter and why I voted against him.

Yeah, I know. That was the beginning of the problem, though. That Bush didn't do anything to try to get it back suggests that his commitment to the free market was stronger than trying to prevent this from happening.

Or that he didn't know.


However, sub-prime lending only occurred because banks now had so much more profit so that they can offer these crappy loans and sell them off to other banks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

I don't think that Fannie and Freddie are the reason. It could have been any bank that collapsed--that the entirety of the economy fell after fannie and freddie did suggests that.

It was the bursting housing bubble that caused this recession. Without a question they got the ball rolling by inflating the housing bubble.

Oh, I get it.

Everyone who voted for the guy you don't like is stupid or was misinformed, and everyone smart voted for the guy you do like. That's a really juvenile attitude.

No not everyone. I'm well aware that there are people who support Obama's agenda

I do believe that if more people had been better informed on who Obama was, what is experience level was, and what his agenda was he would have lost. And if you look at the polls you will see that Obama polls higher than does his programs.

Ironically though, most of the 'more educated' publications ended up supporting Obama. On the issue that I vote for, Foreign policy, Obama was leads and bounds ahead of John 'league of democracies' McCain.

what's interesting is that Obama does poll a bit better than Democratic policies, but both he and Democratic policies poll much better than Republican policies or politicians. Gallup had an interesting poll relating to this during the week:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123917/On-Healt...n-Congress.aspx

More people trust Obama than trust the Democrats in congress on the issue of healthcare.

However, more people trust either of these than trust the Republicans in congress on the issue of healthcare.



Only 5% of people polled said they had a great deal of trust for Republicans on the healthcare issue.

Read again, and you'll know why I'm not even going to bother.



And there's nigh a small difference between those who trust and distrust Obama on healthcare.

55% to 45% in American politics is no small difference.

Is it always that split down the middle?

Everyone is just talking themselves in circles.

Its not about whether people support Obama more than Republicans or Democrats. Obama is an individual, a public figure, someone that a majority of Americans either voted for or supported during the election.

Congress.. meaning both Democrats and Republicans have experienced insanely low approval ratings for the last 8 years or more. So you can't compare 300+ politicians to one individual, its foolish.

Secondly, it was the policies of both parties that led to the recession.





And what did George W. Bush and Barack Obama do, they bailed them out!

If you look back at all the major issues the United States if faced with today you will discover that a majority of Americans voted for change, and we have received nothing. Failing banks like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac still exist with little or no oversight yet combined they hold half of the United States national debt.

On top of that we have no oversight of the Federal Reserve which authorizes the flow of money and is supposed to regulate our nations banks. And in the last year over 100 banks have failed in the United States. To get more specific..



Now you tell me.. with all the problems facing this country with all of the corruption, waste, debt, spending, why are we focusing on health care and the environment?

Both political parties failed us, yet only 1 political party has the power, the numbers, the ability to affect positive change and they are only trying to consolidate power through our health, environmental and financial systems. More control, more regulation, directed in all the wrong areas.

So Obama's approval rating considering he has over 80% support from Democrats is pretty horrible and is a reflection of the direction he is taking this country.

In order to build forced labour camps, you need forced labour, but you can't have forced labour without camps. Catch 22 for our would-be Kenya Stalin.

Come on now, with over 20 million Americans out of full time work I think the government could persuade people to build some type of camps with some extra stimulus money that is lying around