And yet, in spite of everything, Obama has had a VERY popular 3 months in office...

[Bicoastal]

His average Gallup rating of 63% is the third highest for any newly elected President's "first quarter" since 1952, and surpassed only by Carter, Kennedy and Eisenhower.

Eisenhower--71%

Kennedy--74%

Nixon--62%

Carter--69%

Reagan--60%

HW Bush--57%

Clinton--55%

W Bush--58%

Obama--63%

www.gallup.com/poll/117598/Obama-Averages-Approval-First-Quarter.aspx

And he's still holding steady at 62%. Polls are merely statistics, but the guy must be doing SOMETHING right.

[ClarkUSA]

1. Despite the naysayers and haters, President Obama is doing a fine job governing the mess BushCo left

[natrat]

2. interesting. Is this fine job of governing based on specifics ?

[ClarkUSA]

3. Do your homework. I don't have the time to school you.

:redbox: Read through whitehouse.gov and then move on to recovery.gov for the impressive liberal legislation passed thus far, a feat
that has never been matched in recent history during a similar time period.

:bluebox: Take a look at how economic indicators like consumer confidence, home sales, refinancing rates, market gains, consumer
spending, SBA loan rates, TARP repayment by banks plus interest/dividends, etc. have positively changed since February,
too.

[mmonk]

4. GWbush's popularity rating between 2001 and 2002 was from 70%

to over 90%.

[ClarkUSA]

5. Apples and oranges. The OP compares the first 90 days of the first terms of recent presidents.

Considering the adversity Pres. Obama is encountering, his approval ratings have remained remarkably high and steady.
All Democrats should be happy about that.

[mmonk]

7. Not really. My point is popularity is fleeting.

bush ended with a 22% popularity rating. These ratings are a snapshot in time.

[ClarkUSA]

8. Your "point" is odd. Do you really think Pres. Obama will become as unpopular as Bush II someday?

Or is it wishful thinking on your part? :eyes:

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Nevertheless, the snapshot of the first 90 days is a consistant marker

and a valid basis for comparison - it is the time when people are learning just who the new pres is, and are constantly judging him. Of course, Ike had a head start because as the commander of the allies in WW2 he was extraordinarily well known, and well liked, so all he had to do to get stellar ratings was to not completely fuck up in the first ninety days.

And Bush, you'll remember, presented himself as a 'compassionate conservative' - in contrast to the recent example of Gingrich - and the media played him up; yet still he couldn't get out of the 50s in his first three months. The boost he got was artificial, and the crash was the natural result of people learning who he really was - he was fooling some of the people some of the time. He really had NO challenges in his first three months, and his ratings should have been higher, but already people saw that he was an idiot.

[gcomeau]

6. That was pure 9/11 effect and you know it.

Bush could have been doing ANYTHING during those months and as long as they were accompanied by the words "fighting terrorism" that's an 80% approval rating in the name of "standing behind the president in time of war" right there. It took time for that to wear off.

Tossing that stat out there as if it had ANYTHING to do with the validity of Obama's current approval ratings is ridiculously dishonest.

[leftstreet]

9. In spite of what?

What is this 'everything?'

[Bicoastal]

11. In spite of these HUGH, well-publicized protests going on around the country?