Presidential Approval: Obama, Bush, Johnson, Truman

[djAdvocate]

i just noticed something really amazing*.  check out the approval numbers for these FOUR presidents at this point in their term:

Obama = 40
W = 43
Truman = 37
Johnson = 42

this is @ day 1767.

www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

on day 2323, Truman and W were both at 32%.  Johnson was no longer in office (he ended @ a relatively good 49%). 

i have one observation and one question.  the observation is that this list (other than Obama) contains to presidents that are generally regarded as "good" or "near great", and one "bad" or "near horrible".  so, these polling numbers, in the absence of any other information, are no indication of where Obama might end up with respect to how we may view his presidency.

my question is: where does everyone think Obama will end up: good, bad, or neither?

*amazing to me = within polling error of one another.  in other words, they, all four, were basically in exactly the same place.

Virgil: i was incorrect in the answer to your question about a month ago.  presidents bottom out @ about 25%, not 30%.  W and Truman both hit that low.

[Virgil Showlion]

I'm not sure it's even an apples-to-apples comparison. Partisanship in the US seems to be on a steady upward trajectory, and the higher the degree of partisanship, the more the numbers will reflect the popularity of the party rather than approval (or lack thereof) of the man himself.

Also, with so many stinkers cluttering up US history, standards may not have been as high as they once were. Let's face it: Pres. Obama's many transgressions are consistently excused with "at least he's not as bad as Pres. Bush", which suggests to me that Americans are getting used to using low baselines for approval.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2013 15:12:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm not sure it's even an apples-to-apples comparison. Partisanship in the US seems to be on a steady upward trajectory, and the higher the degree of partisanship, the more the numbers will reflect the popularity of the party rather than approval (or lack thereof) of the man himself.

i can't argue either way on this point.  i am not sure how partisanship affects the debate.

Also, with so many stinkers cluttering up US history, standards may not have been as high as they once were.

i would argue that, with the exception of Bush, the entire population of the ten worst presidents were prior to WW2.

Let's face it: Pres. Obama's many transgressions are consistently excused with "at least he's not as bad as Pres. Bush",

that is a very low hurdle to clear.  every president since Harding was better than Bush.

which suggests to me that Americans are getting used to using low baselines for approval.

well, as i pointed out, there have been three presidents that rated this low since WW2.  there were actually two more: Carter and Nixon- but neither made it to day 1767.    so yes, other than Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy, and Eisenhower, presidents have had very low numbers since WW2.