WSJ on the Economic Outlook

You thiink Obama "looks good" on the economy? Hmmmm. I winder why his approval rating is dropping like a rock? If he "looks good" on the economy, it must be something else . . .

Indeed, unfortunately Bill's persception doesn't make John's reality. But then even a 40% approval rating on handling of economy is pretty good for a president in a bad economy. As Nate explains, "It's [Still] The Economy, Dumbass:"

:

[...]The two lines track each other uncannily well. From the very start of Obama's term, there's been about a 5-6 point gap between approval of his performance on the economy and his performance overall, with the latter figure consistently being somewhat higher. Although Obama's approval has declined in both departments (particularly during period between about April 1 and August 1; it may not be declining any further now), the magnitude of the gap has been exceptionally steady over time.The economy, I suppose, is sort of boring to talk about: it's a slow-moving sort of thing, and one over which the President has only a certain modicum of control. And so you'll have pundits attributing Obama's slide to all various and sundry sorts of things -- Health Care! Henry Louis Gates! Torture Trials! -- when really it's just been very much about the number of people who have come to blame Obama about the economy has tended to accelerate faster than perceptions of the economy itself.

[...]

For the most part, the health care numbers are following the same trend, although you can perceive a bit of a secular drop during August, the Month of a Million Town Halls (followed by partial recovery in September, after Obama's address to a joint session of Congress). Although this is not easily provable -- and certainly not proven by this data -- I suspect that much of the anxiety over health care reform also stems from anxiety about the economy, in ways that are both general and specific.Indeed, the most troubling problem for the Democrats may be that government interventions into the economy -- meaning the bailout and the stimulus -- are increasingly perceived as having failed, which in turn increases skepticism about government intervention overall, in health care and other areas. I'm just not sure where this is headed: perhaps when the jobs picture recovers, so too will perception of these other programs, which will rob Republicans of much of their ammunition (although since employment is unlikely to recover significantly before 2010, they'll have plenty of fun in the shooting gallery in the meantime). But perhaps instead, the damage will be medium or even long-term: if the economy takes too long to recover, it may be perceived as being in spite of, not because of, programs like the stimulus. If that's the case, the 2010s could be a lost decade for liberalism.To channel my Inner Krugman: it's a political imperative for the Democrats of the highest order to get some sort of jobs bill to Obama's desk -- the sooner and the bigger the better. Suppose you could create jobs at a price of about $40,000 per, which is higher than the figure suggested by empirical research on highly targeted jobs programs. A $200 billion bill would then create 5 million new jobs, which would reduce unemployment by about 3.3 percent (e.g. from 10.2 percent to 6.9 percent).It's not that easy, I'm sure. But the Republicans -- who have been clamoring for such a bill for months -- are liable to find themselves on the wrong side of the politics of the issue. And even if the jobs bill isn't especially efficient at reducing unemployment on its own, it would have a bit of a wind at its back between the existing stimulus efforts and the organic recovery in the economy.Might it even be worth tabling health care to get the jobs bill passed? Probably not when health care is so close to the finish line, and when the House can start working on a jobs program while the Senate deliberates health care. But if it looks like health care doesn't have the votes, this would be the exit strategy for the Dems -- for Obama to intervene and say: "we need a jobs bill first." Either way, a couple million more jobs would make everything much smoother for the Democrats; the economy remains the primary way that the public evaluates their success.

[emphasis mine]

Btw, did you ever contrast Reagan's job approval during his mini economic crisis to that of Obama's in far bigger crisis? It took Reagan two years for his numbers go beyong 30s and 40s!  Here's a little lesson in history of presidential politics, before you prematurely celebrate your 2012 Kymer Beck, Rogue Palin ticket to disaster. Reagan's first term ratings from Gallup:

Reagan came into office on a fairly high note, with initial job approval ratings as high as 60% by mid-March 1981. Then, on March 30, Reagan was shot on the streets of Washington by John Hinckley Jr., and the resulting concern and sympathy helped lift his ratings to 68% by May. But even as Reagan personally recovered from his wounds, the public's concerns about the bad economy did not, and the president's ratings began to fall as each month went by.

By the end of 1981, Reagan's job approval rating had drifted down to 49%.

Things got worse for Reagan in 1982. The public's view of the economy remained sour, and the president's ratings during 1982 stayed concomitantly low, in the 40% range, ending the year at 41%. The 1982 midterm elections were not good ones for Reagan and for the GOP. The Republicans lost about 25 seats in the House.

A clear cause for all of this was the economy. Still, Gallup analysts at the time presciently noted that there was some cause for optimism for Reagan:

Throughout the year [1982] a solid majority of Gallup's respondents have taken the position that Reaganomics will worsen, rather than improve, their own financial situation. Yet, Gallup consistently has found somewhat more public faith that Reaganomics will help the nation as a whole and even more faith in the president's program when the question is posed with regard to the long run. Surveys also indicate that the public has more confidence in Reagan than approval ratings of his performance would suggest. While only one third approve of the way he is handling the economy, close to half express some degree of confidence that he will do the right thing with regard to the economy.

Indeed, although 1983 began for Reagan with a 35% job approval rating -- the worst of his administration -- things started to look better.

His ratings moved back above 50% by November 1983 -- not only because the economy was picking up, but also in part as a result of rally effects associated with the U.S. invasion of Grenada and the terrorist explosion that killed 241 American Marines in Beirut, Lebanon.

By 1984, Reagan's job approval ratings were consistently above the 50% line that is a symbolic standard for an incumbent president seeking re-election. In Gallup's last October poll before the November 1984 election, Reagan received a 58% job approval rating, and he went on to soundly defeat Democratic nominee Walter Mondale by a 59% to 41% popular vote margin, receiving 525 electoral votes to Mondale's 13.

Interestingly Obama still does better than average compared to other presidents, not bad:

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