Obama left office with a 60% approval rating

In an earlier thread I addressed the fact that Obama's approval rating was close to 60% as his Presidency was coming to an end. I also posted a list of his accomplishments and statistics showing the positive effect his Presidency has had on America. Now Obama's Presidency is over and can take an objective look at the numbers that indicate how America feels about the job he did. The stats are quite impressive. A 60% approval rating at the end of his second term which is one of the highest in American history with only Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton surpassing him. The majority of Americans believe Obama will go down in history as an above average President. Democrats and minorities overwhelmingly approve of Obama. Educated voters highly approve of Obama. Women highly approve of Obama. Hillary Clinton supporter overwhelmingly approve of Obama.

All of this evidence indicates that Obama's legacy is intact. Whatever Donald Trump does will be on him. He can't say that he inherited a bad economy, or had to deal with costly wars like Obama did with Bush. Obama did not leave America in a mess. He improved American society significantly and he should be acknowledged for that.

 

Um, didn't the polls have Hillary creaming Trump?

 

Could be the people are just glad he's gone with the final approval rating. What a president's averages over his entire presidency is in my opinion more an accurate gauge. A according to Gallup Obama Averaged a 47.9% Job Approval as President. Only Truman, Ford, Carter had lower averages as president since Gallup started keeping track of these things.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/202742/o...utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

Job Approval Averages for U.S. Presidents Since World War II, highest to lowest:
President Average approval rating
Kennedy 70.1%
Eisenhower 65.0%
G.H.W. Bush 60.9%
Clinton 55.1%
Johnson 55.1%
Reagan 52.8%
G.W. Bush 49.4%
Nixon 49.0%
Obama 47.9%
Ford 47.2%
Carter 45.5%
Truman 45.4%

Historians look upon Truman as near great president, yet Americans at the time of his presidency sure didn’t think much of him. Nixon, Ford, Carter aren’t looked upon very favorable by historians and Americans at the time of their presidency didn’t think much of them either. How will historians look back on Obama? Check back in 20 years and we’ll know.

 

That has nothing to do with opinion polls on Obama but if you want to go in that direction and try to discredit polling data you should consider that the polls have been very accurate in the past, Hillary Clinton still won the popular vote and some polls showed the gap narrowing between 1-4% days before the election.

No, it couldn't be that because if they were glad he was gone the numbers would drop. If anything it suggests that people recognize how good he was considering his current successor who a lot of Americans are not optimistic about. Also one of the questions specifically asked about whether Obama was an above-average President and he got a high number.

I disagree because a President is going to have highs and lows depending on their political decisions and the state of the country. Obama had an abnormal amount of challenges to face as President. Once his Presidency was coming to an end and voters had a chance to reflect on his job performance they concluded that he did well.

For a historical view of his Presidency we will have to wait and see but once the job was completed most Americans concluded that Obama did well. Bush had high and lows too that inflate his average especially the approval of him going to war in the wake of 9/11 however once it came out that there were no WMD, that the war was costing lives and money and that America was on the verge of economic collapse when that happened and Americans had a chance to reflect on his job in its totality most Americans concluded that he was a terrible President. The average is not irrelevant but once you are at the end of your term people look at everything you did and give their final judgement which for Obama was very good.

 

At the end of Truman's presidency 1952, people thought he was the pits. Now he is viewed as a near great president, ranked 6th best of all our presidents. Eisenhower was ranked 22nd after his presidency, now he is ranked 8th. Historians usually state you must give a president, any president at least 20 years after he left office to get an fairly accurate view of his presidency. That gives time for the partisanship to die down and it also give historians time to view how a president's policies effected this country in the long term. There can be short term gain and long term failure and vice versa. What looks like a bum decision when one is president can look like a great one 20 or 30 years later and again the reverse is true.

Personally, I don't like to pick and choose which approval rating to use, that's is how we look at things today with Obama's final approval rating. I think his rise in approval ratings was a direct result of having two bum candidates to choose from. Clinton and Trump made Obama look great. According to Gallup, a quarter of all Americans didn't want either Clinton or Trump to become the president. They very much disliked both candidates. Me included in that group. I have said on this site I would rather have Obama for a third term than have either Clinton or Trump. That was really, really a sad choice to have to choose from. But like 8 million other Americans last November, my choice was neither along with those 8 million other folks who voted third party.

I will readily admit, compared to Trump or Clinton, Obama was looking mighty good.

 

Considering the dishonesty of the media and the election outcome, the veracity of such metrics comes into considerable question.

 

At least he left under honorable circumstances. There were some who said they'd have to drag him out of there by his ears.

 

The same polls that said Hillary was going to win. Um.... yea right. More fake news by fake news organizations about a fake POTUS.

 

You would have to discredit all political polling data based on the result of one election to justify your position which is not reasonable.

On another message board a Trump supporter claimed that Obama was going to hold the Presidency hostage and not allow a peaceful transition. He insisted this was a possibility and would only believe Obama would give up power when he sees it. The rumor that Obama would serve a 3rd term regardless of who got elected has been going around for awhile. This is yet another baseless conspiracy theory and attempt at character assassination.

A fake President of the United States? How was Obama a fake? I think I know what lies or lies you are referring to but in fairness I will let you answer first.

 

Why?????????? Have you looked at the polls rating the trustworthiness of the media?

 

Candidate of Status and Quo lol, you cannot fully dislike a guy who basically did nothing.

 

So do you trust the polls or not trust the polls? Which is it?

Well that's a blatant lie but if you want to believe that that is your business. Good luck proving it.

 

.. a tough thread you've started here.. trying to be an Obama apologist, while there are still people alive who knew him & his policies. It would be better to wait a while, before starting with revisionist history..

 

Depends upon who is doing them and the accuracy of the data. Then you have to have some basic intelligence to be able to dissect the data along with a working knowledge of stats. Besides my side got it right and yours didn't.

 

You need to look up the definition of historical revisionism. It says nothing about recognizing the accomplishments of a President and citing opinion polls on his job approval rating. Obviously you don't like the guy and you are entitled to your opinion but not your own set of facts.

What did you get right? Be specific. To me it sounds like you only trust data when you like it.

 

I trust good data and analysis. The MSM gave us the LMAO coronation of Hillary Klinton. That didn't happen did it?

 

Show that the polls in my opening post are not based on good data and analysis. Deflecting to the results of the 2016 Presidential election will not do. Show that this data is unreliable.

 

We definitely traded down. Can Trump go sub 30? I think so.

 

So we just throw out the biggest FUBAR of all time?

 

One has nothing to do with the other and historically speaking polls have been reliable in the past. During the 2008 elections some pundits predicted that there would be a Bradley Effect where White voters who say they were voting for Obama wouldn't do it once they actually got to the voting both because of deeply held racial prejudices which has actually happened to Black politicians before. That wasn't the case although I should note that Obama was the favorite to win New Hampshire and then he lost because of White women who sympathized with Hillary Clinton when they watched her crying on TV because she feared losing the election. So polling data can be accurate when reporting what people say they are going to do but inaccurate when it comes to how they actually vote.

What many pundits believe happened in the 2016 Presidential Election is many Trump supporters did not openly express their desire to vote for him because they were afraid of criticism. I think the hacked emails also played a factor (though logically Trump had even worse problems with the molestation scandal). The Clinton campaign also underestimated the frustration of White blue collar workers in the rust belt. Black voters didn't turn out in the numbers they did for Obama in key states that would have made Hillary Clinton President if they did. There are a lot of factors.

So you can choose not to believe these polls if that is what you want to do. But I think you should get a better argument than "Well Hillary lost the election when the polls said she'd win so polls mean nothing."

When Obama's job approval rating was well below 50% conservatives had no problem claiming he was a failure. So it stands to reason that when those polls show his job approval rating is at a record high pointing that out is fair game.

 

I'm afraid to answer as the mods get all butt hurt when they read the truth. I may just have to ramble on.

 

I think you're ducking a response.....

 

I know what you mean. It makes me sad when I get called out for something and I have no idea what they're talking about.

 

I'm not ducking anything because I don't care what you think. Barry is a fake POTUS for many reasons. The one you might be referring to is not the one- You thought the birther issue, I imagine but I never questioned his place of birth. He does seem like someone from another country with his dislike of American values, so wouldn't surprise me in the least if he wasn't born here but libs pretty much think the US is the problem anyway, so who knows but a moot point anyway.

I see him as a fake person, he lied to get into office because no one would vote for him had he been honest about his agenda. He had his own agenda despite what the will of the people was. If he came in and said, I will set race relations back decades, destroy healthcare after the you can keep your doctor, Period and save $2500 a year, call Bush unpatriotic for racking up $5 Trillion in debt but will add $10 Trillion, demonize Christianity while siding with Muslims, treat illegals better than our vets, strip our military, demonize law enforcement, consider Republicans the enemy, flood us with illegals, deny terrorist attacks as work place violence etc. He wouldn't have gotten into the WH. After NBC invented fake news with editing the Trayvon Martin, he started with it, his not knowing facts yet ensuring the police attacked stupidly was his big moment in fake news, then onto the thug Mike Brown BS. He stated nothing would rattle his Muslim faith, to only catch on when the reporter said, you mean Christian faith? A Freudian slip. I think that is enough evidence. The guy is a fake.

Oh and if I get banned, so be it. I tried not to be too rough lol.

 

And a lower average rating than G. Bush and Reagan.