How can a president with only a 42% approval rating govern and win reelection?

[TheWraith]

In a Gallup poll conducted December 16th through the 18th, the President had a 42% approval rating, 53% disapproval, and 5% said no opinion. This certainly means that the president is a lame duck, and going to be defeated when he runs for a second term.

Except that that Gallup poll was conducted December 16th through the 18th, 1994, and the President involved was Bill Clinton.

[FrenchieCat]

1. LOL!

Notice all of the "concern"......trolling around?

[tridim]

6. It's off the charts tonight.

I've never seen DU this bad. I almost don't want to come back tomorrow, mods.

[TheWraith]

14. That's pretty much what I said to Skinner in the ATA forum earlier today.

I took a week off from DU, and I didn't miss the infighting.

[patrice]

17. I've been spending less time here. It's interesting to come back and see how certain

, shall we say, authoritarian, traits are developing.

[Hawkowl]

21. Buh bye!

Come back when you are up for a reality check.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. I Like DU

It likes watching a wreck except nobody gets hurt and you're not struck in traffic for hours.

[msongs]

2. AND there were three candidates so he won with less than 50% nt

[GOPBasher]

31. Clinton got 49% with Perot in the race; he certainly would have broken 50% w/o Perot. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

46. Never mind; I thought you were talking about 1992.

1992: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1992
1996: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1996

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. Why, by sheer force of will, the same way he can...

...make Senate super-majorities materialize. And it's not just Obama.

I, for example, don't know anyone who voted for Reagan, yet he won, twice.

It's one of the powers that comes with the office.

[laugle]

4. I think it was the

Ross Perot effect; otherwise he would have lost.

[OhioBlue]

10. He won with 379 electoral votes to 159

Do you really think Perot was enough of a factor to swing enough states to give it to Dole?

Just asking... I didn't follow politics very closely then.

[unblock]

11. given that clinton got more votes than dole AND perot COMBINED, i'm don't agree.

[Capn Sunshine]

15. Really.

The United We Stand people drew as much from the Democrats as it did the republicans around here. I know because a great many of them were attcted to the Howard Dean Campaign later. From our experience in the Dean campaign, this was a nationwide condition.
They were evenly divided in their Party loyalties.

This meme about Clinton just won't die. It was designed by Rove to undermine the perception of the Democratic Party's appeal in the 90's.

[rufus dog]

16. every study I saw backs your claim

That is, neither Clinton nor Dole gained an advantage from the Perot votes.

[StevieM]

23. Most polling I saw showed Perot taking more votes from Clinton than from Dole. At least that's the

case in the run-up to the election. I can't remember exactly what the exit polls said, but I seem to remember that Perot took more from Clinton on Election Day too.

In 1992 exit polls showed Perot took equally from both candidates. At best you could argue that he cost Bush Sr. Montana and Georgia, and widened the electoral vote margin. And it was only on Election Day that you could finally say that much--throughout the campaign he consistently took more from Clinton than from Dole, and all speculation was about whether he could cost Clinton the election.

Once the election was over, Bob Dole and Haley Barbour (RNC chair at the time) got together and started promoting the lie that Perot cost Bush the election. It's a lie that has stuck to this day, even believed by many Clinton supporters. But it was never based in actual fact or evidence.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. Perot's voters would have had to vote nearly 100% for Dole to make the difference

And I don't mean just that none of them would have had to go to Clinton. I mean that nearly 100% would have had to show up at the polls and vote for Dole. Clinton won very very close to 50% of the vote in a three way race in 1996 and won a majority or close to it in more than enough states to seal the electoral college regardless of Perot. There is zero evidence that Perot would have swung the election to Clinton in 1996 and the evidence in the 1992 case is severely lacking as well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Beware Of Democrats Making Republican Talking Points

.

[niceypoo]

40. Change is the new 'pony'

[girl gone mad]

5. Better start praying for a new economic bubble..

as hard as you possibly can, because I don't see anything on the horizon. While you're at it, might as well pray Republicans nominate someone as dopey as Bob Dole again, too.

[TheWraith]

7. Well, they're probably going to nominate Palin.

Who makes Dole look like fucking John F. Kennedy.

[niceypoo]

41. The next bubble will be our last

The economy can't take anymore supply side.

[Exilednight]

8. Republicans shot themselves in the foot in 1996. They ran Bob Dole ..............

who is quite possibly the most bland man on the planet.

Let's also be honest about this, if Perot did not run in 1992, Bush Sr. would of had a second term. There were 11 states where Clinton won by less than 5% of the vote and another eight that Clinton won by less than 10%. Perot pulled down 19 million, or 18.5%, of all votes out of a grand total of nearly 104 million.

Clinton took in 44 million votes; Bush took in 39 million votes; Perot took in 19 million votes (all numbers rounded down).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Then Why Did Clinton Maintain A Constant Lead Over Bush Even When Perot Dropped Out Of The Race

He dropped out of the race during the Summer because he said the Repubs were sending plants to disrupt his daughter's wedding and then got back in the Fall...

He was one crazy but smart bastard...

[Exilednight]

34. Many polling firms will still polling it as a three way race, and those that ............

polled it as a two way race between Clinton and Bush saw huge upswings in undecideds.

[eridani]

9. By triangulation and fucking over the people who worked to elect him n/t

[dkf]

12. Get unemployment down to 8% and growth above 3% or thereabouts and things will get better.

I hate spending all that money but it's the only thing that saves the Presidency.

[Hawkowl]

22. Raise taxes to achieve that goal

Raise taxes on the rich and on corporations' cash hoarding. Then directly give that money to small businesses and the lower income people. THAT is the only way unemployment is going below 8%. It would also be helpful to pass a Wall Street brokers transactions tax. Just a penny or two for every stock, commodities, and derivatives transactions. This would prevent a lot of speculation and raise a lot of money.

Gotta take the money away from the rich who are deliberately sitting on it.

[dkf]

28. Lower income people probably are closer to zero in Federal taxes.

Tax credits only come at tax time. Unless you want to reduce the payroll tax which most here seem to hate.

[Hawkowl]

51. No

I mean GIVE them money in the form of traditional rent, food, healthcare, and education subsidies. Programs such as Section 8 housing, food stamps, medicaid, and Pell Grants. Simply double or triple or quadruple the amounts of these programs. It would all add up to way less than a few months in Afghanistan and really goose the economy. If Obama could do this immediately he could really get at least a short-medium term boost to the economy that would secure his re-election.

That is DEMOCRATIC strategy. Tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, free trade agreements--those are failed Republican ideas that Obama insists on pursuing. Thus, it becomes hard for the electorate to distinguish Obama from a Republican, and worse, these policies have been proven to fail.

[Clio the Leo]

13. And Reagan's were similar I believe. nt

[JoePhilly]

35. Correct .... around the middle of his 1st term he was at about 35% approval for a while. nt

[GoCubsGo]

44. Yes.

Here's a thread from DU with the ratings for his entire presidency:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8512945

He was in the mid-30's at this same point, and during a recession. Yet, he was re-elected quite handily.

[frazzled]

18. self deleted

[Union Scribe]

19. Your twist wasn't very twisty

Since, ya know, it isn't the 16th yet. An interesting historical tidbit nonetheless.

[polmaven]

42. Yeah!

We're still a whole day an 1/2 away from that....Golly! How can comparisions possibly be made with that large a time difference???? :shrug:

[ProudDad]

20. If the Corpos put their money on it...

Yes...

[Life Long Dem]

25. Back in June of 2004 Bush had a 42% approval rating.

Bush's approval rating lowest since election: Poll

Posted: Jun 29, 2004

Amid rising concerns about Iraq and terrorism, US President George W. Bush's job approval rating has fallen to 42 per cent, the lowest since his election in 2000.

http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=33203

[vaberella]

27. It's impossible...so I suggest we dump the guy. No point in talking about it. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Clinton Won Because Unemployment Was 5.5% And GDP Growth Was 4.0%

If the economy was in the crapper Dole would have been 43. That's why it's imperative to show real economic progress...

[sweetapogee]

36. I don't know

I don't know what the magic unemployment number is, if 8% next year will do it or if it's needs to be 7% but at this time the economy needs to stop moving in the opposite direction. The President had the good fortune to have the census workers help with employment figures, something he will not have in 2 years from now.

But you are correct my friend, the economy; unemployment and GDP will determine the fate of the President.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. People Have A Fetish For Numbers Like Dow 10,000

I really think he needs to get unemployment under eight percent.

[sweetapogee]

52. yes

I agree, as in close to 7%

[Wednesdays]

33. How? By getting above 50%, I suppose.

:shrug:

Or something like that...

[niceypoo]

37. Defecting to those who hate your guts

While crapping on those who voted you into office is not a very coherant strategy

[slackmaster]

38. It depends largely on who runs against him

HTH

[Phx_Dem]

39. I didn't realize there was an election next month or anytime soon.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

43. Right now Obama is "running" against himself

When compared to the lunatic the Republicans will have to nominate in 2012 in order to appease the teabaggers, I predict he will be looked at MUCH more favorably, even among currently disaffected progressives. Plus, we have yet to see the kind of lunacy that the Republican Tea Party will unleash during the next two years- that will make President Obama and the Democrats look MUCH better and more reasonable by 2012- much like how Newt and his "GOPAC Zombies" helped rehab Clinton in time for 1996.

If anybody is still worried about our chances in 2012, just let me ask this: What are the odds that the teabaggers will demonstrate that they and their policies are what Americans truly want and do good (maybe even great) things for our country during the next two years?
:shrug: :rofl:

If Americans REALLY want more teabaggers in government and more teabagger policies for our country (something that is NOT currently indicated by polling data), then, yeah, we're all pretty well screwed for 2012 (and beyond). The odds are better, however, IMHO that the teabaggers will ultimately drown in their own bitter tea (and the Republican Party with them- hopefully).

[zulchzulu]

45. A poll two years away from the election is at least a couple infinities away

It's political crack to take ANY poll seriously this far away from the election.

[Fire1]

48. Good one!! n/t

[treestar]

49. Yep. And anything can happen in two years.

Even if things are bad economically, we've got the don't change horses in midstream argument. The Rs used it in 2004. We can use it too.

To the apolitical center independent, Obama is "the President" and they'll vote for him without thinking. The Rs have nobody who is as inspiring.

[sweetapogee]

54. we shall see

I hope you are right but I have to admit that your strategy is a little on the thin side.

[CakeGrrl]

50. It's laughable that people are waving the doomsday polls around as if

the election will be held next month.

Nuts.

[Freddie Stubbs]

53. The unemployment rate in October 2012 will likley be a more important number

[golfguru]

55. Always! The TREND in employment in October is a better indicator.

[whistler162]

56. I was wondering if it was from 1946!

[Freddie Stubbs]

57. Will Obama triangulate as much at Clinton did?