Isn't that the polling thingy that had Romney ahead by 8 pts and surging, the day before the the last Prez election.?

How does it feel getting soaked?

even if they disagree with his politics.

I learned this after 9/11 when my liberal friends were thankful that we had a "strong, decisive leader" in GW Bush. Folks want a leader to lead, and now that Obama is taking strong, decisive leadership in spite of Republican obstructionism, I predict a rise in his polling numbers.

Wish he had done this six years ago when it became clear that Republicans didn't give a damn about the country, it was all about "defeating" the President and gaining power.

1) Far better than expected economic news -- better than any numbers he ever had on unemployment and economic growth. ( I think that the various minimum wage increases will lead to this continuing this year -- they, in themselves,are a fantastic stimulus to the economy. Think of the increase in money they give to the people most likely to then use the money to buy things they need. I have not seen the expected multiplier effect for those raises, but I suspect they are about as good as multipliers are. Not to mention, that economic justice would argue for even higher increases.)

2) The China pact and the hope the Lima climate change conference -- both unexpected and real. The best thing would be if this could be followed by a similar (but different as the countries are not the same) pact with India. Here, one thing that was lost in that deal was that it was not just climate change. They used that to open some diplomatic space with China. Note that the NYT reporter asking the first question asked if this changed the shift to Asia, which the reporter saw as allying with others AGAINST China -- Obama turned that on its head in his answer. (Imagine a world where everything is not viewed as one side against the other)

3) The Cuba deal -- what is surprising to me is that the more time passes, the more support it seems to get - even over the Republican (and Menendez) demonization of Cuba. It was brilliant to get Pope Francis involved.

4) Some in retrospect might see that Obama had been right on ebola - both in terms of the limited danger here and being a leader in the world's response. ( If WHO and the world can halt this epidemic, they will have done what the world (and Reagan) failed to do in the 1980s with AIDS.)

5) the immigration executive action - both a bold action and popular.

Now consider that the lead in to these incredible two months, was the media spending HOURS speaking of candidates distancing themselves from Obama, because he was "unpopular" and Hillary Clinton and Pannetta both bashing his foreign policy choices made when they were in the cabinet. Did their criticism give some Democrats "permission" to disapprove or make Obama a lame duck earlier than otherwise?

Another factor might be that there were likely many anti-war liberals from June 2014 on unhappy with the action against ISIS. (I have not seen any cross tabs that show Obama's support vs ideology) It could be that while they likely still disagree on this, the immigration, Cuba and climate change actions might have made some who "disapproved" switch to "approve".

the string much longer. There is only so much that can be done by the President alone.

Obama does face a very tough time both domestically and in foreign policy this year. The problems domestically - with a Republican Congress are obvious. It is harder for a Democrat to set the agenda just by threatening vetoes than it would be for a Republican. This is because Democrats want government to work, programs funded and monies allocated - these require legislation and can't come just by vetoing bad legislation.

On foreign policy, most of the biggest problems are very complex and it might be that the US may not have the power, rewards, or levers to help resolve the fundamental problems.

Last year, the US did succeed in creating a coalition against ISIS and moved both Iraq and Afghanistan to select more inclusive governments than anyone thought possible. Those steps were necessary for any future success, but the entire area is still a huge mess. Obama is paying for what Bush did and to a much lesser degree for some of his earlier actions. It is very likely that a lot of serious work will have to be done that will not result in any great victory. At the very best it might lead to a less inflamed middle east. (This may really be a case where credit is only given long after the fact by history)

On Israel/Palestine, it may be time to realize that the US has never been the key player here. Until both the Palestinians and the Israelis really chose peace, it won't happen. Unfortunately, both sides have factions with vested interests in destroying any possible solution. It is hard to see Obama getting a "victory" here.

Throw in Russia, and you have the three most prominent foreign policy issues looking very intractable.

The only potential real victories I can see on the horizon - both incredibly difficult - might be on climate change (Paris 2016) and a nuclear deal with Iran.