REAL CLEAR POLITICS

Early Stage Prostate Cancer | The RCP Blog Home Page | National Journal House Rankings »
July 31st, 2009
The Ongoing Misread of Obama's Poll Numbers
Posted by David Paul Kuhn | Email This | Permalink | Email Author
There is a need to correct some of the media misanalysis regarding Barack Obama's standing in public opinion polls.

First, let's clarify where Obama stands in the public's mind. Obama's approval rating has declined to the low 50s, according to several recent polls. The rate of that decline is larger and faster than many presidents, such as George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, as I detailed here. Obama's approval rating was average over his first half-year in office, and he stood eighth out of the 11 modern presidents on the date of his six-month anniversary in office, as I detailed here.

With this in mind, here is how respected reporters are digesting these numbers. One example from Politico's Ben Smith:

After months of showing sky-high job approval ratings, polls from major newspapers and from the Pew and Gallup organizations this week gave Obama the lowest numbers of his presidency…

The rub is that Obama has not had “months of showing sky-high job approval ratings.” Ben, who can turn a story faster and better than most anyone, is hardly alone in mischaracterizing the data.

Gallup polling is the historical benchmark. Based upon Gallup, I detailed here how Obama's approval rating was average on, and over, his first 100 days in office. To be even clearer, and to let the numbers talk, I did a second post here detailing his standing numerically at 100 days.

In fact, even after just one month in office, this was one of my column leads:

Here's a fact that will probably shock you: Americans today have the same level of confidence in President Obama as they had in W. after his first month in office. According to Gallup, Obama's public approval rating currently stands at 63 percent, only a point above George W. Bush in late February 2001.

I also wrote then, to be explicit about Obama's late February standing:

Obama's popularity today, by Gallup's measure, is a few points higher than Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan at the infancy of their presidencies. He precisely matches George H.W. Bush. And excluding Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson who took office amid tragedy, and therefore earned staggeringly high early approval, Obama is notably shy of other new presidents. Jimmy Carter and John Kennedy had more than seven out of 10 Americans behind them at the close of their first February in office.

The point was then, chill out on the Obama hyperbole. It was not true to fact. Ironically, I suspect Obama's strategic circle now wishes they helped tamp down that early hyperbole.

A couple weeks later, in mid-March, pollsters Doug Schoen and Scott Rasmussen reiterated the point in a Wall Street Journal column headlined: "Obama's Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth." Here is their blunt lead:

It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration.

A few days later, I first highlighted the public's partisan view of Obama. Below is the lead of that column:

The public approval of Barack Obama breaks along stark partisan lines, mimicking George W. Bush at the same point in his presidency.

The headline on that piece was: "Can Obama Hold the Center." It was clear in mid-March, due to this divide, Obama would rise and fall with independent voters (this too took awhile for the political press to digest).

About two weeks later, the Pew Research Center published a small report stating that the public had a more partisan view of Obama than of W. Bush.

In response, I attempted to sober some of that hyperbole; it was in this case over-critical of Obama. I detailed here how, in reality, Obama and Bush's partisan gaps were about the same.

Still, for those not paying attention, I noted:

It was indeed clear within weeks of Obama's presidency that he would not escape the gravity that grounded Clinton and Bush.

Now, let's return to the present. Time's Michael Scherer, another talented writer, followed up on Ben's post with a post titled “Barack Obama Polls Like Normal Presidents.” He generally agreed with Ben's take on the data.

The problem is that we have known Obama polls like "normal presidents" since late February.

I suspect that Dwight Eisenhower benefited a great deal from Harry Truman's plummeting poll numbers. In this same vein, Obama benefits from the decline of George W. Bush in the polls. This likely skews some of the analysis. That W. followed a president who was received through a highly partisan lens, and struggled early on, only further skews our frame of reference.

But the media played a big role in crowning Obama a historical figure. The political media played a big role in misinforming the American public of their purported lofty view of this president. Therefore, we are responsible for the supposed shock at Obama's average standing.