Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Does the Evidence Support an Obama "Meltdown" and "Stunning Decline" in Approval Ratings?
Source:
Gallup
URL Source: http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/20 ... pport-obama-meltdown.html#more
Published: Aug 16, 2010
Author: Gallup
Post Date: 2010-08-16 12:43:20 by go65
Keywords: None
Views: 3163
Comments: 9
A post by “Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator” Nile Gardiner in Britain’s Daily Telegraph caught my eye recently. The headline aptly describes Gardiner's thesis: “The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown.” I’m less interested here in the 10 key reasons Gardiner promulgates, although a number of them are conjectures rather than evidence-based. I’m more interested at the moment in Gardiner’s premise about Obama’s “stunning decline” (he also calls it a "meltdown," "Titanic-like," and "spectacular political collapse"), in part because I am asked on a frequent basisabout Obama’s standing in the polls. Any reference to a "decline" implies change and therefore must be based on a time period. Obama has been in office now for about 18.5 months. We are faced with the question of defining the time period during which the "stunning decline" is hypothesized to have taken place -- over the entire course of Obama's time in office so far, so far this year, so far this month, or something else? Gardiner is not crystal clear on this. He does say in his second paragraph “ . . . the president’s approval ratings have been sliding dramatically all summer [italics are mine] . . . ” which, as far as I can tell, is the only direct reference to a time frame he makes in his piece. Gardiner does, however, quote several poll results, including one he says marks the “lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office,” which would seem to imply a longer time frame. He also quotes an aggregated summary of polls and states that the disapproval rating ("over 50%") is remarkably high for a president just 18 months into office, which does not imply a time frame. And he quotes a latest USA Today/Gallup poll, but without trend context. The best source for trends on Obama’s approval ratings is Gallup's Daily tracking, based on very robust samples of over 3,500 interviews a week, and rigid procedures by which the sampling and the location of the approval question within the questionnaire are kept consistent. Gallup tracking shows essentially no decline in Obama's approval ratings so far this summer. Over the first week of June, Obama had an average 46% approval rating (again, based on over 3,500 interviews during that week), and in our most recent weekly average (Aug 2-8) had an average 45% approval rating. So our massive Gallup Daily tracking database of Obama approval ratings gives no support to the assertion that Obama’s ratings have been “sliding dramatically all summer.” We can expand the time frame somewhat, and look at what has happened so far this year, 2010. The average drop in approval ratings from January through August in the second year in office for these nine presidents is 9.4 points. Obama’s six-point drop so far this year is thus below average and tied for the lowest -- with the exception of Dwight D. Eisenhower. So it does not appear appropriate to say that Obama has undergone a “dramatic slide” in his second year in office, either absolutely or in terms of comparisons to other presidents. Further, Obama’s latest 45% weekly average is by no means at the bottom of where previous presidents have been at this time in their first term. Obama is doing better now than were former Presidents Clinton, Reagan, or Carter in August of their second years. He is doing worse than either of the former President Bushes, both of whose approval ratings were buoyed in their second years by international events and foreign policy (George W. was still in the aftermath of the rally effect that developed after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and George H.W. Bush in August 1990 had just reacted to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq’s Saddam Hussein) . My colleague Jeff Jones recently did an analysis of Obama’s sixth quarter in office. Obama’s 47.3% sixth quarter approval rating was down only marginally from this fifth quarter in office (48.8%) and was ahead of the sixth quarter ratings of Presidents Clinton, Reagan, and Carter. All in all, it does not appear scientifically appropriate to describe Obama’s job approval ratings as having undergone a “dramatic slide” this year or this summer, or to characterize his presidency as in the throes of a “ . . . spectacular political collapse.” The trajectory of Obama’s job approval ratings does look somewhat more negative when his entire tenure in office so far is considered. Obama averaged 63% job approval in his first quarter in office and 62% in his second, before dropping to 52.9% in his third quarter and sliding gradually from that point to his current 47.3% quarterly average. Thus, his shift from first quarter to most recent quarter is about 16 points, which is, in fact, higher than average for presidents since Eisenhower. These nine presidents underwent some fairly widely varied changes in approval ratings between first quarter and sixth quarter. Both Bushes improved their approval rating position over this time frame -- again, because they both were involved in dramatic international/foreign security events. All other presidents, like Obama, dropped in average approval ratings between first and sixth quarters. Obama’s 16-point drop, although hefty, is not the largest. Reagan also dropped 16 points. Jimmy Carter suffered the indignity of having the largest single drop in approval rating between his first and sixth quarters of any president since Eisenhower. Part of Obama’s situation results from his fairly high initial approval ratings upon taking office. His 63% first quarter approval rating was the highest since Jimmy Carter’s first quarter, and thus -- of course -- gave him farther to fall. Still, in this context, I’m not sure I would call even the 16-point fall between Obama's first and sixth quarters “stunning.” It’s on the high end of what we have seen from recent presidents, but certainly is not unprecedented.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: go65 (#0)
Thanks for this GO65. It's good to know what the DNC Reps are afraid of!
Being a Democratic shill means you check your humanity at the door.
Could be, but let's see how he holds up in November?
Being a Democratic shill means you check your humanity at the door.
Yes.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html Look at the direction of the red and black lines at the link and try and make the case the Kenyan isn't bombing.
He won't run for election again until November of 2012.
He is still doing better than Reagan, Clinton, and Carter at similar points in their presidency.
See tagline:
See tagline, polling data, news programs, unemployment rates, foreclosure rates, national homelessness numbers, business bankruptcy's, personal bankruptcy's, oh and the Senate Majority Leader running away from the President just like every other Democrat in a tough race this November. Have a nice day...
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#2. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
Obama is doing better now than were former Presidents Clinton, Reagan, or Carter in August of their second years.
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#3. To: go65 (#2)
Obama is doing better now than were former Presidents Clinton, Reagan, or Carter in August of their second years.
#4. To: go65 (#0)
Does the Evidence Support an Obama "Meltdown" and "Stunning Decline" in Approval Ratings?
#5. To: go65 (#0)
#6. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#3)
Could be, but let's see how he holds up in November?
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#7. To: no gnu taxes (#5)
Look at the direction of the red and black lines at the link and try and make the case the Kenyan isn't bombing.
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#8. To: Badeye (#4)
Yes
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#9. To: go65 (#8)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]