From the crosstabs of a new poll by Pew, here's a look at the Anti-Obama Coalition, followed by the percentages of people within a certain cleavage who approve of the job he is doing as president.
With independents over the age of 50 -- just 37%.
Among whites in the South -- 33%
Among white independents -- 39%
Among white evangelicals -- 28%
Among married men -- 42%
Among everyone over 65 -- 44%
Among those earning more than $75,000 -- 44%
----------
And with whom is Obama most popular?
The religiously unaffiliated -- 60%
Non white people -- 75%
Those aged 18 to 29 -- 59%
Catholics -- 52%
Unmarried women -- 59%
Black people -- 91%
White Democrats -- 72%
White college graduates -- 44%
It looks like he's unpopular with people who bother to vote in midterms.
Ahem. He did not run in the midterms.
And the two (out of four) GOP winners of midterms, the governors, very explicitly did not run on anti-Obama platforms. I imagine both because they realized the president is fairly popular in their states (more than 50% of voters, per the crosstabs) and because, teabagger writ to the contrary, "I'm bored with property taxes but let's talk about Obama!!" is not a winning message. However, posts like this assure me that the Republican lesson gleaned from the elections is exactly opposite to any actual facts.
Good heavens. I had not realized I had packed so much meaning into so few words.
Deborah,
False. His approval rating in Virginia was 48%. What crosstabs are you looking at?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/04/exit-poll-virginia-voters-older-energized/
"All in all, 48 percent of Virginia voters approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, and 51 percent disapprove."
Deborah - "...because, teabagger writ to the contrary..."
Please don't use the term teabagger. It is sexually offensive.
You know what would be great? If someone would do a poll like that, but also ask people to name low-level admin officials and ask them to solve a few logic puzzles.
I'm going to guess that BHO would be lucky to get a 5% rating from those who did well at both.
You're trying to tell me that Southern White Evangelicals will do better on tests of logic or being informed about government than will White Athiest College Grads in their 20s? Bring it on. I'm in the second category, and, assuming you are in the first, we will slay you on either count.
Let's see, in his twentys and oh so wise.
mmmm mmm mmm
OGWiseman
Actually someone (several organizations, actually) has done a poll like that. When people are asked to answer questions based on their knowledge of current events, they favor Democrats (like Barack Obama) and progressive causes.
Example: a university poll (PublicMind, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ.) released in September asked respondents "Do you know what position John Roberts holds in government" and "which party would you say is more in favor of health-care reform." Those who answered both correctly were more likely to say that the U.S. would be better off if health-care reforms were passed than those who couldn't answer either question correctly (48% vs. 27%).
The poll tactfully called the dummies who couldn't answer either question "the least attentive voters." Other possible names for them: independents, conservatives, white Southerners, older whites, married white men, evangelicals.
Looks like he's mostly unpopular with leftovers from the confederacy who never got over losing the war to perpetuate slavery.
Why is "Among those earning more than $75,000 -- 44%" under unpopular and "White college graduates -- 44%" under popular? Is the percentage for white college graduates wrong?
For 24AheadDotCom: He's popular with me, and I do logic for a living, and have for over forty years. Your guess of 5% for those who do well at logic puzzles, combined with your use of "BHO", makes me suspect that your view of reality is one-sided.
Looks like he's more popular with older voters, the ones who have acquired some wisdom, and people who use logic when they think instead of relying on ancient superstitious belief systems.
He used to be popular with me.
Obama is a good president. Obama also, very much like President Ronald Reagan, seems like a president.
Much of what people say about Obama is inflated because the Bank Bail-outs and the Wars are static programs that any president would have handled in a similar fashion.
Where Obama really suffers are two areas where presidents really do not have that much power in the short term.
First, Obama has chosen a course to salvage the Financial Sectors. That salvage will either work or fail, but the results will be slow a coming.
Second, Obama inherited a typical "Democratic Majority", which means that every congressman is a caucus of one, and any compromise to get legislation passed will have to be Pro-life and pro-choice, centered on the suburbs and centered on urban areas, protective of voters who are over 62 and all their entitlements and budget-conscious, black and white, up and down, sensitive to Gay activists and centrist moderates...etc. etc.
Nothing is as useless as a "Democratic Party Majority". Just look at Joseph Lieberman. His state favors the Public Option; he supposedly cares for the needy as a result of his ostentatious religiosity; but he is owned by the status quo and the Insurance and Pharmaceutical Lobbies. And he is a MODERATE.
I think Obama will easly win re-election in 2012, because compared to him, the other people on Public Life are buffoons like Tim Pawlenty and Romney, trying to create a self that will satisfy Sean Hannity or else they are actual idiots like Sarah Palin, or they are Newt and Mike [Huckabee]-like ideologues who just do not strike most Americans as likable and trustworthy.
It will be sad that America wastes Obama's leadership, but anything he accomplishes will be despite the Democratic Party, despite angry Gay people & pro-lifers & die-hard Clintonites & Blue Dog Liars & Fans of Wars & the Peace Lobby and every other angry group, despite the whole Republican Noise and No Chamber, and despite both the MSM and its little brother in silliness "the Internets" as W. named it.
The silliest group of all in Public Life today are the Tea Party Brigades. They are the most coddled collection of selfish people ever. They should have chants: "What do we want? More Government support for us and nothing for people who don't already have it!" "When do we want it?" "Now, when Government stays out of our Social Security Payments and Medicaid and Disability payments, except to give us more and more benefits!"
See David Brooks' column today.
There is as yet a wide disconnect between what people think of Obama himself and what the majority feel about his socialist programs and czars. That anomaly will correct itself.
Define socialism & find me someone in the Obama administration with the official title of czar.
Well PorkBelly/ You have Google and Wikipedia right there. Is it that hard to look up? Are you also one of those Obama supporters that wants somebody else, like your neighbor, to pay for your health insurance?
While you are at it, look up Fascism.
I don't mean to be short with you PB. Don't even know you. Writing to any of his supporters. Look a little deeper into the beliefs of his advisors, governments in general, and why they need to be restrained.
Not as wide as it once was. I'm waiting for the polling to catch up.
As far as I'm concerned, Obama showed promise internationally, but domestically, he's a big-spending, big government, liberal - and I will never vote for him again.
Do any polls every ask the unemployed what they think? FYI I support Obama so this isn't a clever dig. But since the next elections will depend on the 10+% out of work isn't theirs the only opinion that counts?
All the rest is obvious. Over $75k against, Non-whites for. Amazing.
And what color is the sky again?
Obama possesses the best qualities of the best 20th century presidents. He has Wilsonian intellect, Truman's toughness, more charisma than Kennedy, Reagan's strategic vision and Clinton's political instincts. All criticism of Obama's performance thus far is out of context with American history and serves only to discredit the critics.
Comparisons made to Lincoln are off-base and Obama would be the first to say so. The comparison thus far is to Truman, who was considered completely unprepared. He faced the Korean War and establishment of new Federal agencies, among other challenges. Subsequent events vindicated Truman. Although he left office with only a 22% approval rating (same as Bush, the younger), he is now widely considered one of the 10 best in our history.
When viewed in the context of the situation he inhereted, Obama's first 10 months in office have been bold and productive. We have never had a bad president who grasps nuanced American history and Obama is a case in point. His appointment of MacCrystal echoed Truman's move with Matt Ridgway, bold and emphatic. Obama has appointed the best administration we've ever seen and he's hasn't been shy about replacing people who aren't moving fast enough.
This is not to say that he's been perfect, that's simply impossible. The point here is that presidents are judged not by pundits but by the verdict of subsequent events. No one saw potential in South Korea in 1953 and Truman's war was judged a waste of American blood and treasure for a backwards nation. Prevailing racial attitudes surely furthered this view. Our stand in Korea created a modern democracy and paid dividends 30+ years later when Reagan and Thatcher confronted the Soviets. Unlike Americans, Europeans understand that history informs the present, each and every day. The Soviets learned from Korea that democracies respond to aggression in-kind. (They also knew that their tanks were no match for American firepower, as was subsequently proven in Iraq, twice).
It's amusing to compare Obama's actions with various characterizations. This is the so-called liberal president who threw down the gauntlet on teacher performance. This is the 'indecisive' president who very deliberately queued up immigration reform and gay rights behind health care and financial reform. Obama is the only president to recognize the unique and important role played by community colleges (the great engine of American upward mobility) yet he's been bashed as an ivy league elitist.
The opposition has many tools with which to twist American thinking. Lobbyists aren't individuals, they are well-funded corporations, hiding in the shadows of the not-for-profit tax code. Lobbying isn't limited to capital hill back alleys, it buys space in money-losing print media and owns a major network. The opposition has been enraged by Obama's effortless style and perplexed by his lofty refusal to engage race-baiting politics. Obama has been pitch-perfect in communicating ideas and vision, including his response to a Nobel surprise, and right down to the perfection of his salute to fallen soldiers.
You all have a choice. You can take the easy road and flip on the TV or you can learn your country's history and empower yourselves to see the President in an appropriate context. The first choice is intellectual slavery, the second choice fulfills the destiny of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Most of us would give our lives defending the Constitution, isn't easier to just read a book?
Jeez, Raven, you have a lot of time on your hands. In any event, you're argument is really overwrought and hard to follow (just a dumb republican, I guess). Bottom line is, people are allowed to criticize Obama. That you would lump all critics into some subversive scheme perpetrated by corporations is beyond silly (and by the way, was there every a dissection of the anti-Bush coalition??). Obama has a lot of good intentions, I suppose, but until he follows through and/or accomplishes any of them, he's kind of a nothing president. He's hope, sure, but everyone can hope. But actually doing stuff is required to do fulfill your hopes. I'm not part of a corporation, I dont listen to Glen Beck or any other talk radio, I'm kind of liberal republican actually -- gays in the military, same-sex marriage, immigration, abortion -- go for it! But I dont like Obama the president because of what I've read in the paper/online, etc and IN THE CONTEXT of history. Everything could work out the way he plans, but if it does, my feeling is it weakens the US -- economically and security-wise. That's it.
Whether Raven has a lot of time on his/her hands or not is beside the point that they presented a very astute and accurate position. I used to be a liberal republican, until I watched in disbelief as the republican party moved 'way out in right field.
I don't read that Raven is saying all Obama opposition is corporate led, despite the fact that the Murdoch empire has come right out and said they are (and I paraphrase) working to undermine him, and the tea baggers are in large part astroturf sponsored by right wing corporate funded political organizations. The sentiments of what you call the "anti-Bush coalition" was a global expression of dissatisfaction based on actual in-fact shortcomings rather than hyped up biased perceptions loosely based on 9 months in office.
I am confused about your comments implying Obama has not accomplished anything. I really don't get how republicans, who had a congress so fearful of committing to anything that it was nicknamed "the do-nothing congress" can cast that allegation at Obama's feet. Let's see....huge financial stimulus package passed to avert the worst economic disaster in 60 years? Check. Credit Card industry reform bill? Check. Move the oft talked about but rarely addressed issue of health care reform forward the farthest its ever gotten? Check. Make strides to restore global faith in America as nation dedicated to higher causes as opposed to a vindictive war-mongering bully? Check. Restored our standing in the global environmental community? Check. Established policy to jump start green energy leadership? Check. Moved American back to policy based on science as opposed to superstitious ideology? Check. Killed the stupid divisional foreign policy rhetoric that sped unfriendly nations to nuclear options? Check. Compare that huge body of work to the republican antipathy to making any commitments that might later on require defense against their right wing nut job masters and it is no contest.
Again, my objections to Obama have less to do with foreign policy, which is where I think he appears to have hit the right chords - although the seeming inevitability that he will increase troop strength in Afghanistan makes him begin to look like another liberal hawk.
The U.S. has serious problems at home, which have been ignored because of the focus on fighting Muslims around the world and protecting oil supplies. But instead of offering new ideas and innovative solutions to domestic problems, Obama has caved in to every liberal interest group under the sun to come up with solutions that only expand the size and the role of government! This is so counter-intuitive, based on the past performance of the U.S. government, and its inability to be responsible with taxpayer money, and the fact that most of its "reforms" involve payoffs to certain industries rather than actual solutions to problems.
Obama is coopting big business to get their support on the reforms he wants to make. I thought Bush was bad, but this is crony capitalism at its worst! The Republicans sink our economy with endless wars and the Democrats do it with endless social programs.
No wonder there is so much populist sentiment in the country right now - both against big government and against big business and Wall Street. Sarah Palin had it right during the campaign. She just was the wrong messenger. Ron Paul has it right, even though he's dismissed as a kook by many.
If the Republicans and the Democrats cannot "get it," I'm certain that a credible, populist third party challenge will emerge very soon.
thosspot,
but he is doing stuff and accomplishing things. It is just that with the multiple crisises facing america you are not going to get a 4% growth rate, 4% unemployment and peace in World. The expectation that a president that was not-Obama could would somehow have magically achieved this is silly, but it is a silly notion that people opposed to the Democratic party and Obama are pushing as hard as they can because then they can win the 2010 or 2012 and have the country cater to their needs. It's not a conspiracy when the Chamber of commerce comes out agaist expanded health care for Americans, it's an in your face challenge based on ideology and bought research instead of peer reviewed research. And remember feelings can be great deceivers. It is somewhat noteworthy that the entire current GOP campaign to oppose Obama and topple the Democrats is based on manipulating peoples feelings. ie beck, rush, palin, etc... very feeling oriented. It used to be dirty left wing hippies were all about feelings, now it is the right that swims in this sea while the center-left stays rational and is accused of being 'cold' I'll take cold over crazed anyday, my hope is that a majority of Ameircans will too.
This polling would be far more meaningful if it separated out the people who oppose what he says he's trying to do from those who are disappointed that he's not doing what he said he'd do.
He might win again because the Republicans put up a truly frightening, wingnut ticket. Or he might lose because many of us will be so disillusioned that we stay home on election day.
Interesting how making one of what should be equally balanced questions suggests that Pres. Obama is, in fact, unpopular generally. Why not ask first and foremost with whom he's popular? Or, better, ask both: e.g., "What Is Obama's Popularity Among Different Demographic Groups?"