Obama's 47 Percent Approval Lowest of Any President at This Point

[Queequeg]

Obama is historically speaking a really, really awful President. 

He is dealing with a lot of tough problems.  Two unpopular wars, a massive recession and insanely high expectations.  I think he's done reasonably well for a person in as tough a position as his is, and I think he is learning pretty quickly. 

[Fate]

You really quite delusional, Mr. Quee.

America is ready for change. We didn't sign up for cap and tax, the porkulus, and a government takeover of health care. 

Obama will be begging for impeachment after the drumming his party will face in 2010.

[Queequeg]

 

Yeah.  You know, I think Glenn Beck's semen has finally penetrated your blood-brain barrier.  I'd get that checked out if I were you.

[Fate]

Yeah.  You know, I think Glenn Beck's semen has finally penetrated your blood-brain barrier.  I'd get that checked out if I were you.

Prepared to get spanked son. The teavolution is coming! 

[OttoVonBismarck]

You guys are dead wrong on filibustering, it isn't nearly as powerful as it once was.  Prior to Woodrow Wilson literally 3-4 Senators could 100% block the passage of any legislation in the Senate.  Because a small group of isolationists was attempting to block Wilson's involving the United States in World War I, he pushed for a change to Senate rules.  Cloture was born, and was set at a supermajority of 2/3rds of the Senators present and voting.  (64 Senators if all 96 were present in 1919, 67 under a 100-Senator Senate.)

In the 1970s it was changed by a strong Democratic majority to only require 60 Senators, however that was changed to an absolute number, meaning 60 members of the Senate have to vote in favor of cloture.  Technically this meant in some cases it would require more Senators to invoke cloture than in the past (for example under the old rule, if only 60 Senators were present it would only take 41 to invoke Cloture or etc.), in practice it has made it much, much easier to invoke cloture.  Anytime an important bill gets past, riling up the Senators to be in attendance generally isn't a huge problem.  They practically had to wheel Byrd in riding a hearse for the health care vote.

Before the rule change in the 1970s cloture was almost impossible to pull off, and it meant that for decades Southern Democrat Senators blocked all Civil Rights bills.  So yeah, it isn't exactly a new thing that you need a cloture-majority to pass controversial legislation.  The filibuster has been like this forever.

[Fate]

Otto's defense of Republican obstructionists is spot on. Democrat social policies like health care and cap and trade should require a 60 vote threshold, but Republican tax cut and spend policies should be passed through reconciliation plus 50 senators and the VP.

Just like the founders intended. 

[Martinus]

-- George W. Bush, 86 percent
-- Bill Clinton, 52 percent
-- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent
-- Ronald Reagan, 49 percent
-- Jimmy Carter, 57 percent
-- Gerald Ford, 52 percent
-- Richard Nixon, 59 percent
-- Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent
-- John Kennedy, 77 percent
-- Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent
-- Harry Truman, 49 percent

Strix, out of these, which Presidents are remembered as the good ones? Reagan and Truman (similar poll results to Obama's) or G.W.Bush (highest)?

[ulmont]

yeah, it isn't exactly a new thing that you need a cloture-majority to pass controversial legislation.  The filibuster has been like this forever.

The rules have been around.  The filibuster was not routinely invoked until recently, though.  Take a loot at the chart below:

[Sheilbh]

It would be interesting to know how much of the disapproval is coming from the left.

On healthcare I believe 12% of people opposed it because it 'didn't go far enough' - if that's a useful test.

I think Obama's numbers are entirely tied to the economy.  I think he'll probably get a slight bump from healthcare receding as an issue but after that it all depends on how strong the economy is.

The trend in recent years certainly hasn't been more GOP registrations at the expense of the Dems, it is more people who are registering as independents.

However there are very few true independents.  I read an article recently where the pollsters asked independents if they leaned one way or the other and of the 30% of Americans who are 'independent' around 10% leaned Dem and 10% leaned Republican.  Those who 'lean' one way or the other were asked other questions and were generally as partisan as moderate Democrats and Republicans.  Which makes sense, I think.  There's lots of people I imagine who don't necessarily like either party but are ideologically more right or left wing and will vote accordingly even if they view themselves as 'independent'. 

I think this article's a bit dishonest, or at least not terribly useful, in premise because it's effectively choosing Christmas and saying 'no President's been this unpopular at this point.'  But it does literally mean at this point.  For example Clinton's numbers dropped below 40 during his first year and though Reagan's were at 49 in the first week of December by the end of December they were lower than 47.  So I don't think this is as useful as a more general commentary comparing Obama's approval ratings through the first year with other Presidents would have been.  It seems a bit arbitrary. 

[CountDeMoney]

I think Obama's numbers are entirely tied to the economy.

And racism.

[Faeelin]

On healthcare I believe 12% of people opposed it because it 'didn't go far enough' - if that's a useful test.

I think Obama's numbers are entirely tied to the economy.  I think he'll probably get a slight bump from healthcare receding as an issue but after that it all depends on how strong the economy is.

My understanding is Obama expects a 10-15% bump once healthcare's passed, according to his staff. I can only assume they will continue to be right.

[Neil]

Why would Obama expect healthcare to increase his approval rating?  It's not like there are all that many people who work in the insurance industry.

[Sheilbh]

My understanding is Obama expects a 10-15% bump once healthcare's passed, according to his staff. I can only assume they will continue to be right.

I think he'll get a bump - most polling companies are reporting one.  But I don't think it'll be because healthcare's passed, rather it'll be because everyone stops talking about healthcare.

[Martinus]

yeah, it isn't exactly a new thing that you need a cloture-majority to pass controversial legislation.  The filibuster has been like this forever.

The rules have been around.  The filibuster was not routinely invoked until recently, though.  Take a loot at the chart below:

Heh, this looks a lot like a history of Polish "liberum veto". It was originally used extremely sparingly to encourage consensus-seeking (I think it was used like 2 or 3 times during the entire 16th century), and then show its use spiked during the 17th century, as it started being used as a political tool and was used almost every time.

[dps]

yeah, it isn't exactly a new thing that you need a cloture-majority to pass controversial legislation.  The filibuster has been like this forever.

The rules have been around.  The filibuster was not routinely invoked until recently, though.  Take a loot at the chart below:

That's extremely misleading, though.  It used to be that to filibuster a bill, you had to actually keep debating it on the floor, making speaches that lasted for hour after hour.  Often the majority wouldn't even try to envoke closure, but would just allow those opposing the legislation in question to tire themselves out and not be able to continue anymore.  Now, though, all you have to do is basically declare an intention to filibuster--you don't actually have to keep speaking endlessly.