People are still lukewarm on the president

63dot

macrumors 603
Original poster
Jun 12, 2006
5,271
339
norcal
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/23/cnn-poll-obamas-numbers-not-great-but-holding-steady/?hpt=hp_t2

I take it he will never be popular like a Bill Clinton and if there's any big positives it will come long after he is out of office. I can see eventually the tag as being the man who saved us from a true depression and later generations will see him as a hero like FDR. Remember that FDR divided and wasn't as popular in his tenure, either. As it became evident of the huge task FDR had before him, he made it to the short list of one of the greats.

I am not a huge fan of Obama, either but he's far better than W and it's a darn good thing we didn't get that knee-jerk John McCain in there. I also don't think that Mr. "corporations are people" Romney would have been a good thing, either. If for some reason we have a nightmare in 2016 and elect someone like Perry or Cruz, then it will be sooner than later that we realize just how good Obama was in office.

But if we get Mrs. Clinton in 2016 and she's anything like her husband and sits in the WH during a period of serious economic growth, then Obama may not be seen as having been a good president.

I remember when this poll (or it could have been Fox) put Obama at 39% percent, so 42% percent is slightly better.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,835
Midlife, Midwest
Obama was elected probably a decade or two too early in our Nation's history to ever have a chance of being a widely loved President.

The sad reality is that there is a solid ~5% of the population that remains solidly racist, whether they admit it or not. And probably another 15% or so that probably leans that way. And at least some of those people would otherwise be Democratic voters - the same people who happily punched the ballot for Bill Clinton.

The other thing working against Obama's popularity is that he's something of an intellectual. Don't get me wrong: Bill Clinton the Rhodes Scholar was no dummy. But Clinton had a "common touch" that Obama simply doesn't have. And since he's never running for office again, I think Obama has pretty much given up trying to pretend he does. Witness the recent NY Times story about him enjoying late-night dinners in Italy:

Sometimes stretching into the small hours of the morning, the dinners reflect a restless president weary of the obligations of the White House and less concerned about the appearance of partying with the rich and celebrated. Freewheeling, with conversation touching on art, architecture and literature, the gatherings are a world away from the stilted meals Mr. Obama had last year with Senate Republican leaders at the Jefferson Hotel in Washington.
By any objective standard, Obama has been a remarkable President. Healthcare Reform. Amazing advances in gay rights. Winding down useless wars. Destroying al-Quaeda. And - lest we forget - pulling the world economy back from the financial precipice, a very real possibility when he took office in 2009.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,329
10,254
Scotland
Obama ran on the slogan 'change' but really didn't change much. I am appalled that he is still carrying out drone attacks. It is only a matter of time before terrorists reciprocate. If Obama had stuck more to ideals, I would have a higher opinion of him.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,835
Midlife, Midwest
Did you make these numbers up?
Do you think people would truthfully answer poll questions about their level of racism?

Its an estimate. Mainly based on comparisons with how white Democratic candidates fared in elections with and without Obama on the ticket.

But its also based on findings like this one

Racial prejudice against blacks cut clearly across America’s left-right political divide, despite perceptions to the contrary. While 79 percent of Republicans willingly expressed racial prejudice when answering questions measuring explicit racism (as opposed to 32 percent among Democrats), the implicit racism test showed that a majority of Republicans (64 percent) and Democrats (55 percent) held implicit anti-black feelings.
In short, I don't think it is ever going to be possible to get a precise and accurate measure of how racism affects Presidential popularity and politics. But its absurd to pretend that racism isn't playing at least some part. I say it accounts for roughly 10-15% of the negative vote against Obama. Maybe thats too high. But its not zero.
 

aerok

macrumors 65816
Oct 29, 2011
1,488
135
In short, I don't think it is ever going to be possible to get a precise and accurate measure of how racism affects Presidential popularity and politics. But its absurd to pretend that racism isn't playing at least some part. I say it accounts for roughly 10-15% of the negative vote against Obama. Maybe thats too high. But its not zero.
Denying this can be considered racism IMO
 

63dot

macrumors 603
Original poster
Jun 12, 2006
5,271
339
norcal
Do you think people would truthfully answer poll questions about their level of racism?

Its an estimate. Mainly based on comparisons with how white Democratic candidates fared in elections with and without Obama on the ticket.

But its also based on findings like this one



In short, I don't think it is ever going to be possible to get a precise and accurate measure of how racism affects Presidential popularity and politics. But its absurd to pretend that racism isn't playing at least some part. I say it accounts for roughly 10-15% of the negative vote against Obama. Maybe thats too high. But its not zero.
I don't like to hear this but I think it's probably way more than zero.

Overall, if he were white, I think his poll numbers would be a few points higher. No matter how good the job he is doing, there will always be a few who think negatively about him due to race. Even that being said, it's an amazing feat he pulled off by being the first black president. I think Colin Powell could have pulled this off earlier but he decided to stay out of elected office. But what was he going to do, run in 1992 at the height of his popularity against fellow republican George HW Bush? By the time 1996 rolled around the Clinton-Gore administration was sitting over what would become the longest period of economic growth in US history and Powell was finished as far as presidential aspirations. Whoever was to run for the GOP in 1996 was a total sitting duck. By 2000, it was Colin "who"?
 
Last edited:

Mousse

macrumors 68020
Apr 7, 2008
2,047
2,680
Flea Bottom, King's Landing
The other thing working against Obama's popularity is that he's something of an intellectual.
You know which other President was an intellectual? The Peanut Farmer. Possibly the smartest President ever, but completely ineffectual. Obama's failing is his lack of political savvy and cussedness need to push his policies through Congress.

He was riding a huge wave of popularity back in 2008. If he had half the savvy of LBJ, our troops would have been back home in '09 and our economy off life support. He couldn't push his policy of change through Congress in his first term. It seem like he's given up trying in his second.

If not for the stupid term limits, Bubba might still be President now. Imagine what 'Murica would be like if it wasn't for Dubba Yah's reign of error.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,835
Midlife, Midwest
Obama's failing is his lack of political savvy and cussedness need to push his policies through Congress.
LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton all operated at a time when it was possible for Presidents to cajole votes out of opposition politicians through the adroit use of earmarks and other incentives.

With those gone - all in the name of transparency - every issue comes down to simple partisanship.

Its an unpopular position, but you can make a very good case that a little bit of corruption goes a long way towards making a functioning Government.
 

Tomorrow

macrumors 604
Mar 2, 2008
7,116
1,246
Always a day away
Do you think people would truthfully answer poll questions about their level of racism?
Of course I do. They answer truthfully about much more intimate and embarrassing things, like erectile dysfunction, incontinence, marital infidelity, etc. Why wouldn't they be honest about racism?

But its absurd to pretend that racism isn't playing at least some part. I say it accounts for roughly 10-15% of the negative vote against Obama. Maybe thats too high. But its not zero.
How much did it account for in the positive vote for Obama? I don't have the answer, but I'm certain it's not zero.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,801
CT
LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton all operated at a time when it was possible for Presidents to cajole votes out of opposition politicians through the adroit use of earmarks and other incentives.

With those gone - all in the name of transparency - every issue comes down to simple partisanship.

Its an unpopular position, but you can make a very good case that a little bit of corruption goes a long way towards making a functioning Government.
Well a lot of corruption proves otherwise.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
Of course I do. They answer truthfully about much more intimate and embarrassing things, like erectile dysfunction, incontinence, marital infidelity, etc. Why wouldn't they be honest about racism?
Can you prove that your contention is true?

Do you really know that people answer truthfully about these (and other) things?

From the brief look into this issue, it would not appear to be so clear.

It seems that, when there is no objectively correct answer to a question, people are likely to be biased by what they think others will say. For example, they are more likely to give an answer that agrees with what they perceive to be the majority or 'accepted' view than an answer that truly reflects their own belief.

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041011/full/news041011-13.html
And

Response bias

Response bias is a general term for a wide range of cognitive biases that influence the responses of participants away from an accurate or truthful response. These biases are most prevalent in the types of studies and research that involve participant self-report, such as structured interviews or surveys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_bias
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
Of course I do. They answer truthfully about much more intimate and embarrassing things, like erectile dysfunction, incontinence, marital infidelity, etc. Why wouldn't they be honest about racism?
It's been my experience that most racist people don't actually believe they're racist and therefore wouldn't say they are to a pollster.
 

aerok

macrumors 65816
Oct 29, 2011
1,488
135
AFAIK most racist people don't know that they're racist, very similar to homophobics

I'm not racist, I just don't think interracial couples is right
I'm not racist, I just think the POTUS should be caucasian
I'm not homophobic, I'm just against them get married
 

Prof.

macrumors 601
Aug 17, 2007
4,821
556
Chicago
Saying what you're going to do as president on the campaign trail and actually doing those things once you're president are two completely different things. There's so many factors the general public just doesn't understand that affect the actions a politician takes once in the Oval Office. Saying "I'm going to do this" is a lot simpler on paper compared to actually doing it.

Everyone in Washington wants something for their vote. A congressmen from Utah wants this but a congresswomen from New Jersey wants that, and neither one of them are going to put down their vote until they get what they want for their respective state.

We also have the worst congress in American history...
 
Last edited:

Renzatic

Suspended
Just about to say that...

Kind of along the lines of "I'm not racist. I have black friends"...
AFAIK most racist people don't know that they're racist, very similar to homophobics

I'm not racist, I just don't think interracial couples is right
I'm not racist, I just think the POTUS should be caucasian
I'm not homophobic, I'm just against them get married
And the ever classic "I don't have a problem with black people, it's ******s I don't like".

I hear that one at least three times a month around here, and the people who say it almost always have this weird look of semi-guilty self justification on their face when they say it. Like they're mentally trying to reconcile what they've been taught by their parents and grandparents vs. what they see around them vs. what they hear on TV. It's a strange thing to witness.
 

Mousse

macrumors 68020
Apr 7, 2008
2,047
2,680
Flea Bottom, King's Landing
Its an unpopular position, but you can make a very good case that a little bit of corruption goes a long way towards making a functioning Government.
A little grease here and there makes everything run smoothly.;) If you don't have grease, you can substitute oil. Bribery is frowned upon now, so blackmailing works for me.:D Obama needs to grab the NSA by the balls, then he could get it policies through Congress. Surely, the NSA could wiretap politicians.:p
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
And the ever classic "I don't have a problem with black people, it's ******s I don't like".

I hear that one at least three times a month around here, and the people who say it almost always have this weird look of semi-guilty self justification on their face when they say it. Like they're mentally trying to reconcile what they've been taught by their parents and grandparents vs. what they see around them vs. what they hear on TV. It's a strange thing to witness.
You know, I've run across the same exact line many times here in CT. It's baffling in it's stupidity and I'm always astounded when people agree with it as if it's not just blatantly racist.