Obama's Approval Most Polarized for First-Year President

[Syntax]

As reported by Gallup... (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

The 65 percentage-point gap between Democrats' (88%) and Republicans' (23%) average job approval ratings for Barack Obama is easily the largest for any president in his first year in office, greatly exceeding the prior high of 52 points for Bill Clinton.


What caused this?

[Causa Mortis]

As reported by Gallup... (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

What caused this?

A polarized and polarizing news media.

An economic crisis that brought all the unresolvable issues of Keynes v Friedman v Rothbard back to the forefront, exacerbated by the presence of a gigantic stimulus that doesn't appear to have done much and exacerbated by the fact that the dipshit in office from 2001-2009 at least contributed to the crisis.

Poor communication on the part of the president.

Racism and obviously sublimated racism

[Syntax]

A polarized and polarizing news media.

An economic crisis that brought all the unresolvable issues of Keynes v Friedman v Rothbard back to the forefront, exacerbated by the presence of a gigantic stimulus that doesn't appear to have done much and exacerbated by the fact that the dipshit in office from 2001-2009 at least contributed to the crisis.

Poor communication on the part of the president.

Racism and obviously sublimated racism

I would assume racism would be more or less constant, though. I can think of no reason race would cause such an oversensitivity among republican voters, whereby they liked him one month and then didn't the next.

As for the economy not turning around...even Carter didn't experience this kind of polarization.

Poor communication...meh. The only mistake he's making is speaking concisely and not talking to people like they're morons. As far as I can tell his ability to communicate won him a Nobel Peace Prize("for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples")...

If I had to guess...I'd say what you said about a polarizing media is the culprit. The media-fueled tea parties would seem to have been devastatingly efficient in effecting dissent among republicans.

[Scatterbrane]

Not sure what to make of it, since the minor voting turnout increase the last time around implies to me that the voting-age population still has major issues with apathy.

Maybe it's the forceful way in which he acts, not avoiding stepping on any toes. Ronald Reagan is mentioned, didn't he act much the same way albeit for different ends?

[ArtistTyrant]

he didn't win a Nobel Peace Prize for actually doing anything, he won it because some radical leftist Scandinavians wanted to give it to him as a political gesture

[Syntax]

Not sure what to make of it, since the minor voting turnout increase the last time around implies to me that the voting-age population still has major issues with apathy.

Maybe it's the forceful way in which he acts, not avoiding stepping on any toes. Ronald Reagan is mentioned, didn't he act much the same way albeit for different ends?

The interesting thing is, his support is not just polarized among party lines, but also age (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). With this kind of support from young people, a low voter turnout among them would indeed imply a problem with apathy.

[Causa Mortis]

I would assume racism would be more or less constant, though. I can think of no reason race would cause such an oversensitivity among republican voters, whereby they liked him one month and then didn't the next.

As for the economy not turning around...even Carter didn't experience this kind of polarization.

Oh things are worse than they were in the 1970s. The inflation was a problem, no doubt, as was the high unemployment. However during the decade you never saw stagnant median household income or persistent unemployment. You've had the former for a decade and no job creation for over 2 years - that's only been seen before during the Great Depression and during the deflation resulting from the retiring of the Greenback during the late 19th century.

And all of this has happened despite the fact that he's been claiming that its absolutely necessary to run gargantuan deficits to grow the economy. And, erm, 2.5t later and the thing still isn't moving because Bernake won't increase the domestic monetary base except through targeted bailouts that are tantamount to central planning, and is busy offseting fiscal policy with deflationary monetary policy.

Poor communication...meh. The only mistake he's making is speaking concisely and not talking to people like they're morons. As far as I can tell his ability to communicate won him a Nobel Peace Prize("for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples")...

That's the thing - he showed remarkable clarity and communication during the campaign. He's not clear today, and he's shown absolutely no gumption since taking office. And all these huge reforms he keeps talking about but never really acting on are not helping to ease uncertainty in the economy generally.

[TheLastMohican]

I think it's mainly because health care reform continues to dominate the news. The current opinions on Capitol Hill are divided along party lines, with the exception of a few Blue Dog Democrats. As long as the reform is commonly referred to as "Obamacare," the President's approval ratings will be similar in distribution to those of the legislation.

[hubcap]

I suspect that one of the primary factors causing this huge polarization is the fact that the country is facing perhaps the largest group of challenges as a nation that we have faced since WWII, and Obama's administration is idealogically pretty far to the left of center. His approach to the 'financial crisis', the GM bailout, unemployment, and the economy are anathema to most republicans. He has broken a number of campaign promises; such as "lobbyists won't have a job in my Whitehouse"; and the massive deficits he is currently running with no returns to show for it. Not to mention the healthcare fiasco.

[Syntax]

...and now I stumble upon this: Obama Approval by Party Not Atypical (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


Same source, different conclusion. Something is fishy here.






...MY GOD! EVEN REALITY IS POLARIZED!

[zibber]

A polarized and polarizing news media.

Yup yup.. Corporate media "outlets" have gradually figured out this way of doing things garners the largest viewership. Tsk, shame..

An economic crisis that brought all the unresolvable issues of Keynes v Friedman v Rothbard back to the forefront, exacerbated by the presence of a gigantic stimulus that doesn't appear to have done much and exacerbated by the fact that the dipshit in office from 2001-2009 at least contributed to the crisis.


vs. Marx :)

[ArtistTyrant]

no, Marx is not included...those are capitalist thinkers, Marx is not a capitalist thinker

[Causa Mortis]

vs. Marx :)

I don't know much about Marx, so I can't really comment, but it doesn't appear to be a strong force in American politics today.

The Democrats have taken the old-Keynesian stance, the Republicans haven't proposed much of anything besides some real business cycle stuff, and the teabaggers are genereally of the "no fiscal and no monetary" Murray Rothbard persuasion.

[nacht]

As reported by Gallup... (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

What caused this?

Selection bias, among other things. Currently 25.2% self-identify as republicans, while 32% self-identify as democrats (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Since the party dynamics have changed so dramatically, it is not especially useful as a comment on Obama to note that the approval-by-party has changed.

[Syntax]

Selection bias, among other things. Currently 25.2% self-identify as republicans, while 32% self-identify as democrats (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Since the party dynamics have changed so dramatically, it is not especially useful as a comment on Obama to note that the approval-by-party has changed.

What were the changes in dynamics and how did selection bias come about?

[nacht]

What were the changes in dynamics and how did selection bias come about?

The specific changes are not important to how the numbers can change, just that they have. If the parties themselves become smaller, they are likely becoming more polarized as well--this is especially true if one party is trying to develop "purity tests" for its members--so we end up with a situation where we can guess more about a person's position based on what party they are in, because some group has become disgusted with the whole thing and started identifying as an independent.

[IrishGuy]

The interesting thing is, his support is not just polarized among party lines, but also age (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). With this kind of support from young people, a low voter turnout among them would indeed imply a problem with apathy.

Some of the discrepancy could have to do with health care reform. The older you are the more likely you are to feel the pain of any health care reform. The youth being apathetic, probably do not realize that the current plan requires them to purchase health insurance. Personally, I wish they would set it up so that you can have the health insurance or not have it. Just have a 2 week window each year where people can apply. Once you're in you're obligated to be in for at least a year. That will reduce the ability of people to game the system without unnecessarily bankrupting the youth who really do not need health insurance as a group and who are least able to afford it (you should only pay if you are on the program otherwise it doesn't matter).

[Edd Nigma]

...and now I stumble upon this: Obama Approval by Party Not Atypical (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


Same source, different conclusion. Something is fishy here.






...MY GOD! EVEN REALITY IS POLARIZED!
The articles are almost 2 months apart.

[Dodeca]

I am 22 and I do disapprove of the economics Obama has implemented based off of bad advice. If capitalism and the free market are to work properly banks need to fail to keep the system healthy. Bush, Clinton, Regan deregulated fraud under Alan Greenspan and Nixon took us off the gold standard so its all been a downward spiral. Manufacturing is almost under 10% and on Russia Today I herd that the top 1% owns 97% of the wealth. I am not for the redistribution of wealth but on wall street the risk is put on the public well they make all the profits. Healthcare is the same way. You pay them, you get sick then they keep all the money.

[Ray9]

Obama was elected because people were sick of Bush and Iraq. No one really researched what Obama was all about because they just wanted Bush gone and had no stomache for another Clinton. Now it has become evident that the chosen one is as worthless and phony as the Wizard of OZ. The polarization was inevitable because people are waking up to the nightmare they created by electing this cardboard cut-out of a president. The polarization will continue and deepen due to the fact that this administration wants to swing our economy farther to the left than any time in history. This buffoon will be rejected in time but our economy may never fully recover.

[Syntax]

Obama was elected because people were sick of Bush and Iraq. No one really researched what Obama was all about because they just wanted Bush gone and had no stomache for another Clinton. Now it has become evident that the chosen one is as worthless and phony as the Wizard of OZ. The polarization was inevitable because people are waking up to the nightmare they created by electing this cardboard cut-out of a president. The polarization will continue and deepen due to the fact that this administration wants to swing our economy farther to the left than any time in history. This buffoon will be rejected in time but our economy may never fully recover.

That makes no sense. People "waking up to the nightmare they created by electing this cardboard cut-out of a president" would cause a drop in support, but not necessarily a polarization of support. If you read the article you'd know that the people who elected him have only loosened their support by about 6 percentage points, which is normal after a year.

[Ray9]

It makes senes in this respect. Those who elected this president did so anticipating a move to the center which is what was expected based on campaign rhetoric. Most ignored Obama's far left record so when things went far left-socialized medicine, terrorists trials, job creation by economic stimulus, looming massive tax hikes on the middle class, and an expansion of government unseen in American history, the independants who put this empty suit in office realized they were stuck with a pig in a poke until the next election. This created two camps- People who worked all their lives as independant, self-reliant citizens pitted against people who have worked very little or not at all and see nothing wrong with using government to implement income redistribution to enhance and continue their existance as entitlement prostitutes. Thus the polarization.

[Syntax]

It makes senes in this respect. Those who elected this president did so anticipating a move to the center which is what was expected based on campaign rhetoric. Most ignored Obama's far left record so when things went far left-socialized medicine, terrorists trials, job creation by economic stimulus, looming massive tax hikes on the middle class, and an expansion of government unseen in American history, the independants who put this empty suit in office realized they were stuck with a pig in a poke until the next election. This created two camps- People who worked all their lives as independant, self-reliant citizens pitted against people who have worked very little or not at all and see nothing wrong with using government to implement income redistribution to enhance and continue their existance as entitlement prostitutes. Thus the polarization.

The polarization measured was between republicans and democrats. Independent job approval has fallen considerably, but that couldn't cause the effects seen here due to the construction of the survey.

[LaoTzu]

Ray is a good example of why the gap is so large. Led by the neo-con media...

On the right:
It has to do with a bizarre recounting of the past and taking no accountability for current problems. Gaming politics in the present...with no regard for actually... you know.. doing the job they're supposed to be there to do. They just look to the next election rather than governing. They hang their hat on Obama... blame blame blame. They look to oppose everything he does, because they fear his popularity; and can't allow him the slightest political capital. So they irrationally hate.

The left is still blindly supportive of Obama. If they look hard enough, they'll see that he's maybe just a little left of Clinton... and that's being kind. His numbers on the left are probably more to do with a lack of GOP leadership ...

[Tristan]

The left is still blindly supportive of Obama. If they look hard enough, they'll see that he's maybe just a little left of Clinton... and that's being kind. His numbers on the left are probably more to do with a lack of GOP leadership ...

I guess I'm on the south end of this polarization, where our President is concerned, so don't expect me to cut him much slack. But I think he's different from Clinton-- profoundly different. Clinton was political, and his policies were tight maneuvers. He was, overall, the better a President for being this way. Obama is an ideologue held in check by the realities of decision-making. For examples, consider what he wants done about Guantanamo, versus what he has had to do about it. What he wants done in Afghanistan and Iraq, versus what is prudent now that he bears the full responsibility. How he wants the health care sector structured, versus what is possible politically. Compromises, constraints, bargains, realities, risk. There have been few instances where he's managed to give full rein to his ideology. The takeover of GM, maybe?

[SongofSeptember]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Edit. Some relevant points here:

After the election-- and anyone who didn't vote for Obama will know exactly what I'm talking about-- you didn't dare say a negative thing about Obama in public. Certainly not a flippant slander, the kind that are common when discussing Presidents. If you were in a restaurant, before you said anything about Obama you took a serious look around to see who else was near you, and only if it was safe (read: white) could you quickly whisper some veiled comment. You weren't even allowed to be pessimistic about Obama. That was the climate. Again, if you didn't vote for Obama you will know what I mean, if you did you'll think I'm exaggerating. I'm not. Talking negatively about Obama in public was like trying to tell a dirty joke down at Human Resources.

...

In case you have had a short life or memory, Obama isn't the most hated modern President. In terms of depth of hatred, Reagan beats them all, even Nixon. ... However, the hatred was confined to Reagan, not to everyone who liked Reagan. No one got cut off in traffic and thought, "look at this jerk, I'll bet he voted for Reagan." But now...

This is probably because of the way we're now trained to discuss politics: me vs. you. We are encouraged to make the focus be the argument, not the content. Setting yourself in opposition to someone who appears to have a definable character is a shortcut to your own branding, which is why you're having the argument.

Also:

The problem with getting the President you want, only to find that he not only doesn't deliver on his campaign promises, but he's quite uninterested in delivering many of them, is that you don't blame him, you blame the government. ... "The country is ungovernable, we need a reform of government!" Why is it more ungovernable now? The government is the same one we've had for 2 generations. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dick Durbin-- all your major players from both sides-- have been there for over 20 years. Ideas and ideology haven't changed since Vietnam. Obama was the Change guy-- but there aren't any new ideas there. Hell, he's even copying Bush.

It's an interesting article. Thoughts?

[nacht]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It's an interesting article. Thoughts?

To start, calling it an article is entirely too strong. It is a blog post from a largely anonymous author. It also starts out with a strong slant and builds from there with comments such as "you didn't dare say a negative thing about Obama in public."

The first part talks about how the environment is more polarized, but this started under Bush. He then goes on to repeat the same old tired hacks about "not delivering on his promises," when the overwhelming evidence is that he is mostly doing exactly the opposite.

Is there any particular reason you consider this article worthwhile?

[IrishGuy]

To start, calling it an article is entirely too strong. It is a blog post from a largely anonymous author. It also starts out with a strong slant and builds from there with comments such as "you didn't dare say a negative thing about Obama in public."

The first part talks about how the environment is more polarized, but this started under Bush. He then goes on to repeat the same old tired hacks about "not delivering on his promises," when the overwhelming evidence is that he is mostly doing exactly the opposite.

Is there any particular reason you consider this article worthwhile?

I also think it's important to point out that there is a difference when one attempts to fulfill promises and when one fails to even address them. The President is not all powerful and it seems that there is a gap between what the President wants to do and what he can do in the current political landscape. For instance, Obama wanted to close Guantanamo Prison but found that he couldn't get the prisoners onto US soil because of opposition from members of congress who have adequate prison facilities with which to house the suspected criminals. You can critique Obama for mishandling the situation and for not closing Guantanamo but, many in the opposition act as if he didn't even attempt to have the prison closed.

Basically, there seems to be this bipolar mindset where he either delivered on his promise or he lied and didn't address it. He addressed it and the representatives of the people chose to not close Guantanamo. Responsibility lies with the people and their congressional representatives who have adopted a "I want this done, but not in my backyard attitude."