Why Obama Won’t Bounce Back

History shows presidents who aren’t running for reelection don’t recover from drops in their approval rating.

President Barack Obama speaks during a ceremony on Veterans Day at Arlington National Cemetery on November 11, 2013 in Arlington, Virginia.
National Journal
Alex Roarty
See more stories about...
Alex Roarty
Nov. 12, 2013, midnight

His­tory says Pres­id­ent Obama’s sag­ging ap­prov­al rat­ings — which this month have neared the lows of his en­tire pres­id­ency — aren’t go­ing to im­prove be­fore he leaves the White House in 2017. And that’s a troub­ling tra­ject­ory for Demo­crats feel­ing the pres­sure of reelec­tion next year.

His­tor­ic­ally, pres­id­ents whose ap­prov­al plum­mets in their second term don’t re­cov­er. Such was the case for Harry Tru­man back in 1950, ac­cord­ing to Gal­lup sur­veys. After reach­ing a high of 46 per­cent in Ju­ly of 1950, the 33rd pres­id­ent’s ap­prov­al nev­er rose above 35 per­cent dur­ing the last two-and-a-half years of his pres­id­ency. The pre­cip­it­ous drop co­in­cided with Amer­ica’s in­volve­ment in the Korean War.

An­oth­er war helped bring about a more re­cent pres­id­ent’s down­fall. George W. Bush nev­er topped 50 per­cent after March 2005 and spent most his re­main­ing ten­ure mired in the low to mid-30s, thanks in part to the un­pop­ular­ity of the Ir­aq War. His ap­prov­al fur­ther de­clined near the end of his pres­id­ency, when the fin­an­cial crisis of 2008 left the eco­nomy in tat­ters.

In fact, no pres­id­ent in the last 60 years has watched his ap­prov­al rat­ings bounce back dur­ing their second term. Either they didn’t make it to an­oth­er stint in of­fice (Ford, Carter, and George H.W. Bush), nev­er dipped in the first place (Eis­en­hower and Clin­ton) or were re­moved from of­fice at the nadir of their pop­ular­ity (Nix­on). Lyn­don John­son re­covered some­what, but only after an­noun­cing he would not seek an­oth­er term. Ron­ald Re­agan dropped from the low 60s to the high 40s amid the Ir­an-Con­tra scan­dal, and his pop­ular­ity nev­er re­covered en­tirely un­til his last months in of­fice. But it also nev­er fell to lows ex­per­i­enced by Tru­man or Bush.

“In a second term, once a pres­id­ent’s num­bers de­cline, they nev­er come back up,” Ed Goe­as, a Re­pub­lic­an poll­ster, told re­port­ers last week dur­ing a break­fast hos­ted by the Chris­ti­an Sci­ence Mon­it­or. “There’s a good reas­on for that: they don’t have a reelec­tion cam­paign go­ing on. They don’t have the air cov­er on air. They’re not put­ting back to­geth­er a cam­paign in con­trast to the op­pos­i­tion.”

Goe­as sug­ges­ted Obama has reached a sim­il­ar point-of-no-re­turn in his pres­id­ency. A spate of sur­veys sug­gest the poll­ster might be right: The Pew Re­search Cen­ter last week found only 41 per­cent of adults ap­prov­ing of his job per­form­ance, while 53 per­cent dis­ap­proved. The 12-point split was the largest of his pres­id­ency, the sur­vey found. Obama’s ap­prov­al rat­ing was also at 41 per­cent in Gal­lup’s polling last week, in­clud­ing a three-day rolling sample that showed it bot­tom­ing out at 39 per­cent.

Obama and his sup­port­ers like to say he’ll nev­er face reelec­tion again, so his num­bers don’t mat­ter. But oth­er Demo­crats — namely red-state Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisi­ana, Mark Pry­or of Arkan­sas of North, Kay Hagan of North Car­o­lina and Mark Be­gich of Alaska — will face voters again, dur­ing next year’s midterms. And a slump­ing pres­id­ent has been noth­ing but bad news for his party col­leagues.

Demo­crats lost 28 House seats and five Sen­ate seats dur­ing the first two years of Tru­man’s second term. In 2006, Re­pub­lic­ans lost their ma­jor­ity in the House and Sen­ate, los­ing 30 and six seats, re­spect­ively, un­der Bush’s lead­er­ship. Pres­id­en­tial parties with a pop­u­lar chief ex­ec­ut­ive have man­aged to ac­tu­ally add seats at the six-year mark, like Bill Clin­ton in 1998.

The past isn’t as­suredly pro­logue for Obama. For one, there simply haven’t been enough pres­id­ents in the post-World War II era to draw defin­it­ive con­clu­sions about their path — the sample size, in ef­fect, is too small. And Tru­man and Bush were also be­set by deeply un­pop­u­lar wars dur­ing the bulk of their second terms. Obama is off to a dif­fi­cult start in his second term, but there’s no cor­res­pond­ing cata­strophe like a war or fin­an­cial crisis.

The Af­ford­able Care Act’s botched rol­lout, likely part of the reas­on of the pres­id­ent’s dip in pop­ular­ity, threatens to drag him down fur­ther. But if the law’s im­ple­ment­a­tion im­proves without too much col­lat­er­al dam­age, or if the eco­nomy picks up, Obama could see a second-term bounce.

“It’s pos­sible for a pres­id­ent to see his ap­prov­al rat­ings re­cov­er after they’re dropped if you have some pos­it­ive news back­ground, if there’s a strong eco­nom­ic re­cov­ery,” said Alan Ab­ramow­itz, a pro­fess­or of polit­ic­al sci­ence at Emory Uni­versity who has stud­ied the link between pres­id­en­tial ap­prov­al and elec­tions.

And al­though Obama’s num­bers are low, they’re still far high­er than the GOP’s, whose un­pop­ular­ity reached his­tor­ic lows after the shut­down and debt-ceil­ing im­broglios. It’s what could be­come one of the most sig­ni­fic­ant ques­tions of the 2014 midterms: Whose un­pop­ular­ity mat­ters more, Re­pub­lic­ans’ or Obama’s?

Demo­crats are con­fid­ent the GOP’s struggles trump Obama’s. But they ac­know­ledge a strug­gling pres­id­ent doesn’t help.

“Is it pos­sible for us to get the turnout we need if we don’t have a stronger pres­id­ent?” asked Celinda Lake, a Demo­crat­ic poll­ster who also spoke at the Mon­it­or break­fast. “That really, in my mind, is the ques­tion. Be­cause we can’t have a wave elec­tion in our fa­vor if we don’t get these … miss­ing voters out.

“We would be helped enorm­ously by a pres­id­ent who is en­ga­ging voters and who is turn­ing people out to vote.”

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4565) }}

What We're Following See More »
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
17 hours ago

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
18 hours ago

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.