Gallup: Comparative Approval Ratings Of Past 10 Presidents

[Beloved Citizen]

From an article that discusses the historic level of polarization between the two major parties. Approval ratings are taken from each president's standing at this point in their first (or only) term.

Johnson 75%
Eisenhower 69%
Nixon 62%
Clinton 55%
Reagan 54%
Ford 47%
Bush* 47%
Carter 43%
Bush 40%
Truman 39%

http://gallup.com/content/?ci=11884

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. Kennedy should be Truman

or is it 11 presidents being discussed and Kennedy is omitted?

[Beloved Citizen]

2. Kennedy didn't live long enough to see this point of his term.

[Journeyman]

3. From the cited text. . .

"Approval ratings are taken from each president's standing at this point in their first (or only) term."

Unfortunately, Kennedy didn't make it to this point in his term.

[TheFarseer]

4. this worries me

Bush II is 7 points higher than his daddy, and papie might have won if not for Perot.

[TheBlob]

5. That doesn't make sense.

Many pundits have been pretty emphatic about saying that NO President has won "re"-election with approval numbers as low as Dubya's at this stage in an election year.

[kainah]

9. dumbya's numbers are in the middle of the range

Those who won re-election -- Reagan & Clinton -- had numbers in the 50s and above. Those who lost -- Bush I and Carter -- had numbers in the low 40s and below. dumbya's numbers are between.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. Clinton would have won by more without Perot

this has been discussed here before.

[TheFarseer]

7. sorry must have missed that discussion

It's hard to say where those voters would have went but I think over half of them would have went Bush.

Since I'm very bored today, I crunched the numbers of no Perot and 60% of his votes going to Bush and 40% going to Clinton, which I thought was pretty fair. Nevada, Colorado, Montana, Ohio, Georgia, New Jersey, and New Hampshire go Bush and Clinton still wins 302-236. Not the least bit scientific, but interesting(to me anyways)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. The incumbent got the least number of votes

Clinton wins no matter how you cut it when considering that 2 challengers outpolled Bush.

[DemPopulist]

10. I calculated this once

Bush would've had to have gotten 62% to 65% of the Perot voters for him to overtake Clinton, at least in the popular vote. Because of his overall unpopularity, as cited above, he just was never going to get that; he would've been lucky to get half of the Perot vote. The whole myth that Perot cost Bush the election is something that started after Clinton won. When Perot got back in the race a month before the election, the Republican strategists like Mary Matalin went around saying it would actually help them by splitting up the anti-Bush vote. The notion that a president with 30%-40% percent approval in the months before the election had his victory "spoiled" by Perot was basically a post-election GOP spin that for some reasons, many liberals bought into.

[rumguy]

11. CLINTON MORE POPULAR THAN REAGAN!

And all we ever hear is what a popular, well-liked preznit he was...

What a fucking joke...

Clinton was as popular if not more so, and all we hear is how "divisive" he was, etc. - I'm so sick of the whore media!

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: