by Mark Silva
What a year.
Nearly one year ago, George W. Bush concluded his presidency with an average public-approval rating of 49 percent in the Gallup Polls - 34 percent in the final temperature taken of the outgoing administration.
President Barack Obama entered office with 83 percent public approval for his handling of the transition between administrations, though the new Congress was sworn in with just 20 percent of Americans voicing approval of the way Congress was handling its job. Days after inauguration, 69 percent of Americans surveyed were voicing approval for Obama's performance as president.
The new president, one month into office, signed a $787-billion economic stimulus for a recession-saddled economy, with 59 percent of those surveyed voicing support for the measure. The new president, who had campaigned with promises to withdraw American military forces from Iraq, also ordered 17,000 additional troops into Afghanistan - the first of two escalations this year that will bring the total U.S. deployment to nearly 100,000 by next summer. Two thirds of all Americans surveyed approved of that initial boost.
By March, public sentiment toward Congress was making a rebound: With public approval for the job that Congress was performing rising to 39 percent, a four-year high.
These are among some of the signal findings of the Gallup Polls conducted during a tumultuous year that ends today.
Into April, the new president's job approval remained above 60 percent, with American satisfaction about the way things were going improving "steadily.''
During his first 100 days in office, Obama met or exceeded the expectations of the American public, Gallup found, with two-thirds perceiving the Democrat as making a sincere effort to work with Republicans.
Although Americans said it didn't really matter to them whether the new president filled the first vacancy on the Supreme Court presented to him with a woman or minority, the public reacted favorably to the president's appointment of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic member of the high court.
In May, more Americans said they were thriving than struggling economically, a boost in consumer confidence. And, for the first time, more Americans called themselves "pro-life'' than "pro-choice'' on the question of abortion.
As the debate over health-care got underway in June, Americans were voicing more confidence in physicians than politicians to recommend the right thing.
In June, the new president's approval rating slipped to 58 percent, falling below 60 percent for the first time, in a daily series of tracking surveys that Gallup initiated with the new administration. Yet, into July, the president's approval rating remained above 55 percent,'' suggesting,'' according to Gallup, that he was "still in a honeymoon period'' with the American public.
But as congressional leaders started debating healthcare reform, more Americans were voicing disapproval than approval for the way that Obama was handling health care.
Public approval for Congress was growing more polarized politically in August as Obama's own approval rating fell to a new low of 52 percent.
The advantage that Democrats were enjoying over Republicans in polling about which party people might be most likely to support in the next congressional elections slipped to five percentage points.
By September, congressional approval had slipped to 21 percent, with the generic ballot test finding Americans nearly tied in their sentiment about which party to support in the 2010 midterm elections.
In October, Obama won the Nobel Prize for Peace - a measure, according to the committee, of its confidence in the new president to place diplomacy ahead of confrontation in world affairs. And the president's public approval for his handling of foreign affairs was running at 53 percent. His overall job approval also got a slight boost out of the event, bumping to 56 percent.
In November, however, the president's public approval rating slipped below 50 percent for the first time in Gallup's daily tracking surveys - it had peaked at 69 percent in the days following his inauguration.
This morning, the results of the latest Gallup daily track showed that the president's approval rating had notched up a few points this week, from 51 to 53 percent, heading into a new year which is certain to pose a challenge for not only the president, but also his controlling party, advancing a health-care reform that worries many Americans and approaching a midterm election in which Republicans have found cause for optimism.
What a difference a year can make.
Comments
Obama's biggest Lie for 2009-
"Open Goverment"
Any more sugestions out ther?
Happy new Year to all-
Agree or disagree we still have- FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
PS-Best to you Mark for 2010
Posted by: Inky | December 31, 2009 10:09 AM
It is not really that hard to understand the slide. Most Americans don't understand the depth of the economic disaster the republicans left behind nor have the patience or understanding of how long it takes to bring an economy of our size back from the brink of destruction. True to form, once created by the republicans, it became an opportunity for the republicans to transfer blame, mislead, misdirect, and out and out lie to the American people playing on this very fact. Proof is in the pudding when we see that the biggest lie of the year, "death panels" was the war cry of the very leaders in the republican party. Sarah Palin, the republicans hope for a presidential run in 2012, was the loudest shouting this very lie at the top of her lungs and pages of her facebook. It is not about truth to the rabid, but power. Fresh out of ideas but still hungry for power, they have turned into a party of name calling radicals bent on misleading the American people and using the peoples emotions as best they can. Today it is raining out.....another example of the Obama administration. While they are content to use these emotions and socialism, marxism, and other conflicting isms don't think for a minute that although the people have little patience that the American people trust or believe in the republicans. Even in this day and age, people want ideas, not names.
Posted by: bill r. | December 31, 2009 10:19 AM
This "slide" is a media invention. All presidents experience some sort of decline in their first year, and especially when they come in with nearly unanimous support.
The GOP spin machine was going to make sure they scared the Republicans who supported Obama in the beginning into coming back in the fold.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Posted by: matt | December 31, 2009 11:09 AM
PUH-leeze!!! While I'm sure the economy is part of Obama's slide that's not the main problem. His turning a deaf ear to the wishes of the majority of the electorate is his biggest problem. It's hard to be popular when you're perceived as arrogant. The polls say most people believe the stimulus did more harm than good. What does Obama do? He goes for a second stimulus. The majority of people believe that the current Healthcare reform bill will do a great deal of harm. Obama persues it like it's the Holy Grail. As one article I read was titled, "There's no Deafense for Obama's Tin Ear". The arrogance I speak of has been amply demonstrated and it's that arrogance that Democrats are going to pay for.
Posted by: Ken W, | December 31, 2009 11:30 AM
It doesn't seem to matter who is in office, it's business as usual.
Wall Street is still gambling with our money and receiving bailouts and was first in line for the H1N1 vaccine.
Big medical-insurance-pharma
have their talons dug in deeeper than ever, thanks to congress.
Dick Cheney is still shooting off his pie hole and accusing others of the very things he was guilty of..and more.
Posted by: writerofwrongs | December 31, 2009 11:56 AM
The right dislikes Obama because they think he's a liberal; the left is disappointed with Obama because he's not. That mix means low approval ratings.
Obama is, and always was, a corporatist moderate and pragmatist. His policies/actions have consistently reflected this. The problem is no one wants to believe the facts that are right before their eyes. Wars, corporate bailouts and tax cuts are the stuff of the middle, not the left.
Even though Obama's policies have been anything but progressive, he's perceived by the right as being too far left -- indeed as being a "communist" or "Marxist.) Of course, 100% of the idiots who call him this cannot distinguish Karl Marx from Groucho Marx, let alone describe the basic tenets of Marxism, such as the elimination of all private property. But that's of no moment: willful ignorance is considered a postive attribute among supposed "conservatives" in this coutnry, hence Palin's popularity.
On the other hand, too many liberals/progressives unjustly believed that Obama was a progressive. He never was; he never really held himself out to be. He's a couple degrees left of center, at most. He's no Dennis Kucinich and never was.
Both sets of misperceptions arise from the same problem: race. Both the left and the right think that because he's (half) black, Obama must be some kind of hardcore liberal. Call it benign racism, but call it what it is -- a false perception that (almost) all blacks are liberal.
Obama is a moderate. If he can correct the erroneous perception that he's a liberal, he'll have much better approval ratings.
Posted by: a blinkin | December 31, 2009 11:58 AM
little billy - you are some piece of work fella!
You give voice to the side of the pillow that never sees the light of day and call nasty names like a child recites the ABC's.
The ultimate hypocrite, well, you and big Don!
Posted by: springfield | December 31, 2009 12:14 PM
I have to disagree with Ken W. Outside of the rabid partisan world, arrogance is not a word used by most people to describe Obama. Frankly, I'm not so sure that it has become a code word for the rabid for "uppity". When the war in Iraq became unpopular with the American people, the right praised Bush for sticking to his beliefs, now it is considered a tin ear?
Posted by: bill r. | December 31, 2009 12:37 PM
little billy - you are some piece of work fella!
Posted by: springfield | December 31, 2009 12:14 PM
Gosh...now I feel sooo bad. Coming from you that means so little. Care to address the context of my post? or are you content to be childish?
Posted by: bill r. | December 31, 2009 12:46 PM
BillyR,
"economic disaster the republicans" - explain the policy or law that did this?
Posted by: Terry | December 31, 2009 12:53 PM
From Vice-President Biden "The bottom line is that jobs are being created that would not have been there before.”
The picture of the year says it all.
http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/correction-to-the-may-unemployment-chart/
Happy New Year to all.
Posted by: Terry | December 31, 2009 1:01 PM
Its funny how we forget both parties are to blame, not just one. This is were independents have the challenege of going with our countries 2 party system that has become corrupt. Life time politicians now function differently than the founding fathers established. Congress, who really runs our country, has been awful and yet we focus on who is President but put less thought in the voting in of these candidates. While I can say I am not an Obama fan (go ahead and get mad), I am also not a Bush fan. Being fairly young I can't say I ever had the chance to vote for a great candidate, some were decent but the choice is between which isn't as bad. Shouldnt we consider the root problem in our system or blame those now running it. Obama nor Bush caused these problems, they are merely the result of the way we have slowed changed over the years and thus sleeping in the bed the ENTIRE country has made for itself. So sad to see Bush blamed and now watching that its Obama's fault is disheartening that we honestly think one individual can save our country. Start at your home, look inward and look back at what our country has done well and repeat it!
Posted by: kyle | December 31, 2009 1:59 PM
Blinky, Obama is by no means a corporatist moderate. He is a far left liberal through and through. The problem for folks like you is that he is not far left enough. You'd be happier with someone like Stalin, Mao, etc. Heck, even Chavez earlier this year joked that Obama was further to the left than he and Castro.
The reasons for Obama's slide are many:
1. Excessive spending.
2. Cap n trade
3. Health care reform that really isn't reform but an incremental takeover of an industry by the government. Speaking of:
4. Too much government.
5. Weak on terror.
6. Too much apologizing for alleged U.S. sins.
7. Refusing to recognize there is terrorism and terrorits.
8. Tax cheats in his Cabinet and czarsphere.
9. Far, far left loons in said Cabinet and czarspere.
10. Not listening to the people.
11. Not leading. Letting Peloony and Harry "Illegal Land Deals" Reid set policy.
12. Attacking American businesses, American people, media outlets such as Fox News.
13. No transparency when he said there would be.
14. Business as usual when he said there wouldn't be.
15. Higher taxes.
16 Unreal deficit spending into the trillions PER YEAR!
17. Too much on TV. In other words, way too much exposure. Most folks don't want to see politicians on TV ALL the time!
18. Fluffy media coverage. Most folks are getting smart enough to realize the media is a teabag for Obama and don't like it.
19. Incompetence in his administration: Geithner, Napoleonato, Clinton, LaHood, well practically the whole darn Cabinet, save for Gates.
20. And, yes there is always a drop-off from the inauguration. It's just never been this severe.
Posted by: John D, still right, as usual | December 31, 2009 2:03 PM
Many disaprove of him also do to his spend recklessly. Why he refuses to listen to the pubic is beyond me thus he loses of those who put him where he is. Me being a Independent I think the republicans are starting to show more favor then Obama and his Democrates. Speaking of Democrates and Obama why do they keep blaming everyone why can't they focuse that energy into learning from past mistakes and apply them to our future?
Posted by: Brandon | December 31, 2009 2:21 PM
Why is it that Obama defenders always want to talk about Bush? Perhaps it's because Obama is worse. Sure Bush had a tin ear and he was arrogant. Obama is much worse and he's hitting a lot closer to home. Why the rush to pass a healthcare bill that won't do much but raise taxes for 4 years? Why not post it on the internet 72 hours before voting? Could it be that the president that campaigned on transparency doesn't want us to know what he's doing? Why not? Democrats keep saying that once Americans know what's in the bill, they'll like it. So, tell us. Don't rush it through. Could it be that Obama and his ilk believe they know better than we do what's good for us? That's pure arrogance and it's being perceived that way. The arrogance is more bothersome than the policies. I'll bet Ben Nelson would like to have his vote back now. He's down 30 points against a hypothetical Republican.
Posted by: Ken W. | December 31, 2009 4:26 PM
Many disaprove of him also do to his spend recklessly. Why he refuses to listen to the pubic is beyond me thus he loses of those who put him where he is. Me being a Independent I think the republicans are starting to show more favor then Obama and his Democrates. Speaking of Democrates and Obama why do they keep blaming everyone why can't they focuse that energy into learning from past mistakes and apply them to our future?
Posted by: Brandon | December 31, 2009 2:21 PM
You have an excellant point-
but one angle that hasn't been brought up, Obama is controlled by his political donations and a big,big portion of thes are small one that they don't have to declare, the big secret is wher they came from---------- Happy New Year to you-
Posted by: Inky | December 31, 2009 5:54 PM
Obama, a PRAGMATIST? a MODERATE? Compared to whom, Attila the Hun? Joseph Stalin? BO is a Marxist through and through! Watch what he does and who he surrounds himself with and ignore what he says. He knows how to play a crowd of fools like BB King plays Lucille, his guitar!
I just returned from a business trip to China. While having breakfast in the Shangri-La Hotel in Beijing I was berated by a Chinese businessman about the U.S.'s current "headlong rush to Communism" (his words)! He asked me if I'd been to China before and I confirmed that I had been--in 1992 and again in 2007. He then pointed to the fabulous courtyard at the hotel and the beauty of the hotel's interior. He then went on to say, "NONE of this happened because of Communism! This is the result of FREEDOM and Capitalism and you haven't seen nothing yet!" His next statement was the corker: "All that we had under Communism was the freedom to be equally poor and equally hungry...and if you were unlucky: equally dead!" At that, tears welled in his eyes and he stated, "Where is America going--that great country that was the model and hope of a billion of us in bondage?"
As we parted he shook my hand, then shook his head and said, "America how could you have been lead astray?" ....and I wondered the same.
Posted by: Cal T | December 31, 2009 5:56 PM
Good God!! When will the people wake-up? Our govt. lying to us?
If you want a great read about 2010, then I suggest reading that new book just out about a small town in America that stands up to federal tyranny & ends up starting the
2nd American Revolution.
History may now be calling on all of us to fulfill our destiny & leave a legacy. It's that good of a book. I recommend it.
www.booksbyoliver.com
Posted by: GreyWolf | December 31, 2009 6:03 PM
@CalT:
Thanks for proving my point. You call Obama a "Marxist through and through" yet it's evident you have no idea what Marxism actually espouses. You're literally clueless about this.
Don't just listen to me (not that you are). See for yourself. Do five minutes of research on the internet machine (hint: "Das Kapital"). Obama's policies and actions are not in the same galaxy as Marxism.
It's just boring and tedious for you folks to just continually spout out words you don't understand. You call him a Marxist when you may as well just be calling him a "booger." You're just calling names, with no substance behind the words.
As for your maudlin China anecdote, the Chinese version of "communism" was anything but what Marx envisioned. Marxism would have economic decisions made collectively through democratic (little "d") processes -- a bottom-up model. The Chinese (and soviet) regimes were in reality State control -- top-down -- resulting in oppression and fascism. True enough, these were not at all "free" societies.
Obama is not a Marxist or any form of socialist. His policies favor the accumulation of private wealth, which is literally the the opposite of what Marx espoused. Take the time to learn what your labels mean, or, better yet, shut your hateful, ignorant trap.
Posted by: a blinkin | January 1, 2010 11:12 AM
a blinkin I also do not think of Obama as a Marxist or communist for lack of a better word. But, what is taking from someone to give to another by a government called if not socialist. You can call it light socialist but it is still the same thing. And please in your response no childish name-calling or insults.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | January 1, 2010 6:27 PM
Even in this day and age, people want ideas, not names.
Posted by: bill r. | December 31, 2009 10:19 AM
Really? Exactly what ideas did Obama present? Or should I say what promises did he make that he has kept? Hope and change...
If ever there was an empty suit that won the office of president it is Barrack Obama. He was the "rock star." And, he chose the guy that dubbed him that as his VP.
Who is running the country? Rahm, Nancy, Goldman Sachs, who? Cause it sure isn't Obama.
If you insist that it is, then why aren't his purported ideas being implimented? He said that he wanted Afghanistan to be the focus, yet it takes him 11 months to act. He has said so many things that are lies, promises broken. Why are the bankers still getting sweet deals? Because Obama is just an empty suit. He's there to tell you what you want to hear while business as usual goes on behind the scenes. Open, honest and transparent, just like hope and change a platitude from an empty suit.
Posted by: Free to Watch Whatever I Want | January 2, 2010 4:41 AM
* * * * *
Posted by: a blinkin | January 1, 2010 11:12 AM
.
You have propounded a logical fallacy. You syllogism is as follows:
.
1. All Marxists are socialists. (True.)
.
2. Obama’s behavior shows he is no Marxist. (Probably true).
.
3. Therefore, Obama is no socialist. (Demonstrably false.)
.
The foregoing is called the fallacy of the undistributed middle. The undistributed term is “socialist.” While all Marxists are socialists, not all socialists are Marxists. Therefore, Obama can logically belong to the category of “socialist” while not likewise belonging to the category “Marxist.” In fact, Obama is a socialist.
.
Unlike Marxism, varieties of socialism are practiced in Europe that are non-revolutionary, non-evolutionary, non-universal, and which do not require the government ownership of all property or even the means of production. The basic premise of Continental Socialism (in its non-Marxist form) is not to create an equal society or better human beings. Such utopian ideas have been jettisoned in favor of simple “social justice.” The ideal of “social justice” is met by having government deliver sufficient material wealth to a collectivized population. It is not necessary for a socialist government to confiscate all property or nationalize all industry or means of production as long as it can confiscate enough through taxes to meet its “social justice” goals. In fact, leaving the means of production in the hands of private ownership has proven useful in relieving government of having to actually supervise production. This is exactly the way things work in countries like Denmark, Greece and Sweden, all of which are avowedly socialist in their practices. In each country, productive citizens are taxed through the nose to support wealth redistribution and the provision of services to everyone else.
.
It is painfully clear that Obama meets the definition of a socialist of the continental European school. He enthusiastically embraces the use of the federal government as a means of confiscating sufficient wealth and then redistributing it to collectivized population. He has said so numerous times, and made no bones about it. Indeed, his soon-to-be magnum opus, the healthcare bill, is a classic example of this kind of socialism. Everyone in the country will be collectivized by the individual mandate to purchase and maintain health insurance, and then the wealthy will be taxed additionally for redistribution of subsidies to those who can’t easily purchase their own insurance policies. (I’m sorry you missed the socialist content of these bills.)
.
You may be thinking - “Well, one law a socialist government does not make” - and you would be right. But the upcoming healthcare laws are just the latest in a string of collectivization, taxation and redistribution schemes enacted at the federal level. Welfare, Social Security (i.e., the biggest Ponzi Scheme of all), Medicare and Medicaid - which are all the product of “progressive” Democrat legislation - have the same (Continental European) socialist fingerprint. And, furthermore, the latest bills are only the most recent examples of this. Obama has publicly stated his support for the federal-collectivize-and-redistribute methodology beyond the health care arena. It is embedded in his philosophy of government.
.
Thus, your “He-ain’t-the boogyman-so-he-isn’t-bad” argument simply falls apart from its own weight. He is a socialist. Instead of fighting the label, you should simply embrace the fact that you like his brand of socialism and be done with it.
Posted by: John W. | January 3, 2010 12:20 AM
WOW John W. you nailed it.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | January 3, 2010 10:50 AM