For the first time, Barack Obama fell below 50 percent in the Gallup tracking poll.

Obama's decline comes at an historic pace. It ranks in the lower third of modern American presidents.

The fall below 50 is a fraught milestone for any president. In legislative terms, a president is only as powerful as he is popular. Public approval rating is the metric of that popularity.

Below 50, a president can no longer claim the majority's support. His political arsenal depletes. A president's political opposition has powerful, though nebulous, new ammunition.

Of the twelve presidents since World War II, Obama lost the majority at the fourth fastest rate. It nearly was worse. Ronald Reagan's fall-point came about a week sooner. That Reagan also fell below 50 during his first November, and would go on to languish below 50 for two years, illustrates that the milestone is not determinative.

But Friday's news—Obama at 49 percent—is indeed symbolically significant. It will immediately impact the health care debate, albeit intangibly and perhaps only slightly. It will be more difficult for the White House to pressure moderate Democrats.

Obama owes most of this year's decline to independents. But Obama's newly weak standing is also due to the loss of still-more Republicans and to a lesser extent, some Democrats.

The physics of Obama's approval rating generally reflect George W. Bush's in 2004, when he first dipped below 50 (mid 80s with his party, low to mid 40s with independents and high teens with the opposition). Bush below 50, however, maintained slightly stronger support within his base than Obama—possibly because 2004 was an election year.

Clearly, Obama's greatest issue is with the fickle middle. Obama's fragile bond with independents has been visible throughout his young presidency. As early as mid March, this writer was wondering: Can Obama Hold the Center?

Other recent polls, like Quinnipiac, have also for the first time tracked Obama below 50. But Gallup has unrivaled historical reach. Its findings carry unique symbolism. Obama's RealClearPolitics average, the mean of major public polls, is at 50.6 percent.

The bulk of Obama's public opinion decline occurred over the summer. Democrats can largely blame the crawling health care legislation. But more recent issues have not helped, including double-digit unemployment and his unpopular decision to hold the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian criminal courts.

All presidents, save John Kennedy, eventually fall below 50. Gerald Ford fell below 50 during his third month (pardon of Richard Nixon) and Bill Clinton in his fourth month (a confused and unpopular early domestic agenda). Reagan fell in November 1981 (the U.S. was entering, what was then, the worst recession since the Great Depression).

The remaining post-war presidents held the majority's support longer than Obama. Excluding Kennedy, Obama's predecessors lost the majority on average after 23 months in office; the median was 13 months.

For some presidents the fall below 50 will fluctuate but generally mark the beginning of an unrelenting decline (Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter). Others presidents languish in the minority but eventually recover (Reagan and Clinton). Some presidents fall below the threshold but quickly recover (Dwight Eisenhower).

Democrats need not panic. Most modern re-elected presidents fall below 50 at some point in their first term. But his early popularity (nearly at 70) means that few have, so quickly, fallen as much as Obama. Obama's public approval suffered the worst third quarter (July 20 to October 19) decline of any elected president in the post-war era, according to Gallup.

In a time of tracking polls, Obama can recover and fall in a matter of days. After W. Bush fell below 50 in January and February 2004, he fluctuated in the 40s and low 50s throughout the year. Bush's long dive began in his second term.

Obama first saw 50 in late August, according to the Gallup tracking poll. We've known since then, with an eye on how other presidents dealt with that milestone, that: For Obama, The Fall Below 50% Looms.

Now Obama is here, a president without the majority. I've written before that public approval is the currency of political capital. Now we'll witness—as Democrats struggle to extricate health care from its legislative quagmire—how Obama governs without the riches of what was, last January, soaring public support. These are the periods that test presidents.

Rasmussen survey of the California Senate race shows incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer under 50% but still maintaining healthy leads over her two potential Republican rivals:

Boxer (D) 46
Fiorina (R) 37
Undecided 12

Boxer (D) 46
DeVore (R) 36
Undecided 13

Apropos Sean's post on the results of the CNN survey, there are plenty of data points to to explain why Americans are visibly frustrated with the state of the economy. While Wall Street Banks are set to dish out record-breaking bonuses just a year after being bailed out of the financial collapse, things are not nearly so rosy on Main Street:

Nearly one in 10 homeowners with mortgages was at least one payment behind in the third quarter, the Mortgage Bankers Association said in its survey. That translates into about five million households. [snip]

In the first stage of the housing collapse, defaults and foreclosures were driven by subprime loans. These loans had low introductory rates that quickly moved to a level that was beyond the borrower's ability to pay, even if the homeowner was still employed.

As the subprime tide recedes, high-quality prime loans with fixed rates make up the largest share of new foreclosures. A third of the new foreclosures begun in the third quarter were this type of loan, traditionally considered the safest. But without jobs, borrowers usually cannot pay their mortgages.

Once again, the lesson is simple: jobs are paramount. We see unemployment continuing to rise in 29 states, which means things are going to get worse before they get better.

This is exceedingly perilous political terrain for Democrats, who control all the levers of power but have spent the first eleven months of the year focused almost exclusively on health care. It's growing clearer by the day that the one signature item passed by this Congress (along strictly partisan lines), the stimulus, is at best a mixed bag and at worst a complete failure.

The Obama administration continues to insist its claim of more than 1 million jobs "saved or created" is legitimate, even as the underlying data supporting that claim has come under severe scrutiny.

Regardless, the claim is effectively trying to prove a negative (that the economy would be worse had the stimulus not passed), which is an utter intangible that doesn't matter a whit to voters. What matters to voters is what they see around them in the real world on a daily basis, and right now what they see is high and growing unemployment, and continued economic anxiety with no end in sight.

It was bound to happen sooner or later, though Democrats very much hoped that it would be later. Public opinion is shifting -- sharply -- and Americans are beginning to blame the Democrats for the state of the economy.  According to CNN, 38 percent of Americans blame the GOP for the state of the economy, down 15 percent from May, while 27 percent of Americans blame the Democrats, up six percent.  27 percent blame both parties.  Perhaps even more troubling, 28 percent of Americans believe that Obama's policies have harmed the economy, while 35 percent think they've made no difference.

Rasmussen is out with a new poll this morning indicating that Senator John McCain could be facing a stiff primary challenge from former Rep (and now radio talk show host) JD Hayworth. According to Rasmussen, McCain leads Hayworth by a slim two point margin, 45 to 43.

“This result is no surprise to us. Maybe Obama didn't understand that all the high officials of the so-called free media are appointed by the party.” - Michael Anti, a Chinese blogger, explaining why Obama's interview with the Chinese Newspaper Southern Weekly disappeared from some editions while a heavily edited version appeared in others.

The Watertown Daily reports:

With his prospect of winning the 23rd Congressional District race now almost zero, Conservative Party candidate Douglas L. Hoffman suggested Wednesday in a letter that “ACORN, the unions and the Democratic Party” “tampered” with results to deny him victory.

Mr. Hoffman provided no evidence to support his claims, but asked fellow conservatives to send donations his way to “ensure every vote is counted.”

This strikes me as a fairly transparent ploy on Hoffman's part to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the results. If he's got proof fraud occurred, then by all means bring it forward. But to cry fraud without proof is irresponsible, not least because will undermine future cases where fraud may actually have occurred.

A new Zogby poll for the League of American Voters, a group which opposes the health care legislation, shows Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln leading her most likely general election opponent, Republican Gilbert Baker, by just two points, 41 to 39, with 18 percent undecided.

The poll then proceded to probe voter opinions on health care. Fifty-four percent were opposed to "the healthcare bill proposed by President Obama and now making its way through Congress."  Thirty-eight percent said they would be "much less likely" to vote for Blanche Lincoln if they knew she supported the legislation.

Zogby then re-asked the general election question this way:

Knowing that Lincoln supports the healthcare bill, if elections for U.S. Senate were held today, and the candidates were Democrat Blanche Lincoln and Republican Gilbert Baker, who would you vote for?

The result is Lincoln drops to 37 percent while Baker surges to 49 percent, and 11.5 percent remain undecided.

That's a 14-point swing based on Lincoln's vote on health care. Again, this poll should be taken with a grain of salt given the sponsor, but even if the effect of Lincoln's vote is only half of what this poll suggests, it could be the deciding factor in her race for reelection.

CEDAR CREEK, Texas -- At its annual conference today, the Republican Governors Association released results of a poll finding that only 43 percent of voters nationally would re-elect President Obama if an election were held next month. Slightly more -- 45 percent, say it's time for someone new in the White House, while 11 percent say it would depend on the GOP nominee.

In a subsample taken in 30 gubernatorial battleground states in 2010, 42 percent would re-elect Obama, a potentially ominous sign for Democrats looking to maintain majority control of the statehouses.

Among independent voters nationally, just 37 percent nationally would elect Obama, while 46 percent want a new president, and 17 percent say it depends on the Republican opponent.

The survey was conducted by Zogby International among 2,879 voters from November 10-12, and has a margin of error of +/- 1.9%. A subsample of 1,471 voters who voted in last year's presidential election and plan to vote in the midterms was conducted in states that Cook Political Report deems to have a competitive gubernatorial races.

Though a potential warning sign for Obama's political health nationally, one should not necessarily read these numbers as a potential bellwether for 2010 without seeing state-by-state numbers. Still, the RGA says the 42 percent figure mirrors results in Virginia and New Jersey, where Republicans won races earlier this month.

New poll from FOX News/Opinion Dynamics shows President Obama's approval rating sinking to a new low of 46%. An equal number now disapprove of the job Obama is doing as President.

Most concerning for the White House is that 51% of Independents disapprove of the job Obama is doing compared to only 34% who approve.

On the other hand, Congress' job approval rating ticked up versus FOX's last poll in mid-October, though it remains at a dismal 26%. Sixty-three percent disapprove of the job Congress is doing. Last month those numbers were 24 and 66 percent, respectively.

Republicans hold a three-point edge over Democrats on the 2010 generic ballot question, 42 to 39. Fifteen percent said it was too soon to make a determination.

Twenty-three percent of those surveyed say Obama is a "weaker leader" than they expected (including 8% of Democrats, 37% of Republicans and 29% of Independents). As a point of comparison, that number is 10 points higher than an identical question asked about President Bush in July, 2001.

Lastly, by an overwhelming margin of 67 to 26, respondents said it was appropriate for a President of the United States to bow to a foreign leader if it is part of that country's custom.