presided over massive private sector job growth, adding well over a million net private jobs since the Stimulus, more than George Bush added in 8 years.
-passed health care reform (which is, among other things, a ban on insurance discrimination based on pre-existing conditions; subsidies for low-income Americans to purchase insurance; coverage for people up to age 26 on their parents insurance; filling the Medicare donut hole and expanding Medicaid to 133% of poverty level; and pilot measures in reducing medical costs – all of which is more than paid for, according to the CBO.
saved the auto industry
pulled combat troops out of Iraq
repealed DADT
proposed a politically risky military operation that successfully killed Bin Laden, not to mention killing many other Al Qaeda leaders
ended torture
cut middle class taxes
30% of the country is going to love Obama no matter what, and 30% is going to hate him. But why hasn’t the record outlined above secured Obama’s reelection prospects among the moderate 30%? Is it just messaging?
Do the middle third really believe the Republican message blaming Obama for all of the lost public sector jobs? If that’s not it, what is it? [To be clear, I’m interested in your answers for why moderates are split on Obama instead of being like 80/20, and less interested in why non-moderates of either stripe are unhappy.]
Republicans and conservatives have been pursuing a wide-spread campaign of disinformation and lies. Posters on this very board stick to the lies they heard on right-wing sources even when confronted with facts.
I’m not saying Obama is the best president ever, but he has done a lot of good things. But Republicans pretend he’s an out-of-control Marxist bomb thrower.
For low information voters this creates a perception of Obama’s ineptitude that’s swaying the middle.
I think the mentality of this OP goes a long way to explaining it. If the economy is poor, people blame the President. It doesn’t matter if the President has done things to make the economy better, or that there are good arguments the other party would make it worse, or if the reasons for the economic problems have nothing to do with the Presidnet, or even if the President has done things that affected the persons economic situation personally.
People just get scared, and blame the guy “in charge”. I don’t think the thought processes go a lot deeper then that for a non-trivial chunk of voters.
Meh, they did the same thing with Clinton, and he left office with something like a 70% job approval rating. And in his case, they actually found some dirt (albeit just in his personal life). I don’t think partisan noise makes as much a difference as Dopers tend to think.
He did not propose the plan to kill Osama, he approved it.
Whether a Depression will be avoided remains to be seen.
His health care plan is in serious danger–some courts have declared parts of it unconstitutional, and SCOTUS will probably end up deciding the issue. Another part is not feasible–see Bricker’s thread.
I think overall, Obama has done the best anyone could do under today’s circumstances.
But he has a certain…lack of charisma. He’s a handsome man no doubt, but his personality is too subdued. I think if he moved a little away from the strong silent type, and a little towards the fire in the belly orator mode, I think his standings would improve among the populace. He can do it. His speeches can soar into the heavens. Remember the 2004 Democratic Primary, and his speech on racism during the whole Jeremiah Wright controversy?
I’ve been waiting for him to take the Republicans head on, but he’s still just waiting, apparently.
Discounting the partisans… and the folks who swallow their stuff without asking questions…
Part of it is because O has made the greatest attempt, of any President in the last generation or so, to stay within the confines of the Constitution. No midnight appointments just because Congress wasn’t physically in the Capitol building. Not many executive orders (beyond authorizing small scale military strikes - which is within his authority, if a grey area when it becomes ongoing.). For the most part expecting Congress, especially the House to send HIM legislation, etc.
All this has been painted in the press as "leading from behind’, being ‘weak’, or even ‘clueless’…
Then there’s also the anti-populist message being sent because he didn’t go after the bad actors who blew up the economy, and continued his chumminess with Immelt. His retention of Geithner, Holder, and a few other cabinet folks who many, even in those his own party, feel really shouldn’t be where they are.
And yes, folks like simplistic answers to complex problems. They are hurting, and therefore President is their Judas goat for it all… It wouldn’t matter who was in the office
That’s it in a nutshell (however you choose to interpret that expression). Presidents are presumed to be leaders who can avoid or effectively mitigate recessions. In the view of a large chunk of the electorate, Obama hasn’t delivered.
Worse, his solution is perceived by many (right and left wing) as having kowtowed to large banks and financial institutions who were bailed out and went right back to party time as soon as they could. So Obama is in the relatively unique position of being viewed on the one hand as a corporate tool, and also as a dangerous socialist (some Tea Party types manage to see him as both).
I can’t recall any other President who managed that (Bill Clinton tried but came nowhere close).
The health care plan is also seen by many as some combination of a sellout to big insurance companies and an unworkable money pit.
Some of the other stuff on the OP’s list is either debatable or unlikely to stimulate much voter enthusiasm.
The bloom is off the rose, kiddies…the consolation for Obama is that so far, polls indicate voters are even less thrilled with any of the GOP candidates.
He selected from among different plans, and chose the one that was politically most risky but had the greatest upside for America.
I don’t agree, but it doesn’t really matter. What does that have to do with his approval ratings among moderates? They think a President McCain or Romney would have reduced the chance of a double-dip to 0%?
Again, I don’t agree, but it doesn’t really matter. What does that have to do with his approval ratings among moderates? You think moderates disapprove of Obama because conservatives might be successful at winning court battles?
I didn’t say otherwise. And, again, how do you think this has affected his support among moderates?
I think that’s true, but I think that the people who think he’s a corporate tool will either vote for him anyway or aren’t needed for his election, and the people who think he’s a dangerous Socialist would never vote for him in any circumstance. Do you think any moderates believe either of those propositions?
I’d go further than that. He said during the campaign that if there were intelligence indicating where bin Laden was, he would attack. McCain ridiculed him for that.
Obama made a campaign promise to go after bin Laden, and others opposed that policy. Obama then said yes to the plan that was offered in order to execute his policy of going after bin Laden. He deserves more credit than simply saying yes to an option given to him by the military.
I disapprove of President Obama for these reasons:
I believe his health care law is unconstitutional.
His assassination of Anwar al-awlaki (sp?) was unconstitutional and a very dangerous precedent to set. No proof of his wrongdoing has been offered to my knowledge. Even though that’s beside the point
He continues to conduct military operations in foreign nations when there is much unrest on our southern border.
He promised to close Guantanamo and hasn’t, something that is under his control.
Thanks for your response, WillFarnaby. Let me ask this, is your job approval independent of how you think a GOP President would have performed? On your issues, do you think a GOP President would have or will perform better?
I think the number of voters who believe the latter proposition is at least stable, and the number who believe the former has increased (how much, and how upset they are about it remains to be seen).
Damn if I know how much moderates/independents are influenced by these perceptions, but as an extreme centrist myself, I see his actions benefiting corporate America (while he simultaneously rails against The Rich for being the major source of our problems) as having little to do with ideology, and everything to do with maintaining Obama in power. He’s no more a raging socialist than T. Boone Pickens, but I guess some feel otherwise.
I think he has done better than McCain would have. I also think he has done better than Bush did. When deciding if I disapprove or approve of him I don’t compare him to what a Republican president would have done. I compare him to what I think should be done.
“President Obama strongly objected on Friday to provisions of the 2011 Defense Authorization Act that prevent the military from transferring Guantánamo detainees to the US for trial.”
Congress blocked funding when he tried closing Guantanamo, so it apparently isn’t under his control, or at least he doesn’t have the ability to close it.
I think moderates see Obama as weak, if not inept, his accomplishments notwithstanding. They also see him as too willing to give in to a party that has absolutely no intention of working with him. He’s ‘bi-partisaned’ himself into a corner.
Compromise is one thing, and necessary in politics, but letting the other guy have everything he wants, while you get nothing and don’t even put up a fight, causes folks to wonder if they backed the wrong horse.
He had two years with a Democratic legislature. He managed to get a bogus health care bill passed but can’t close a prison?
You can strongly oppose something all you want. What happened to the veto? Show some balls. That was a key campaign promise in my eyes and one reason I voted for him.