The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[pbrower2a]

I can't see President Obama winning Kansas except against a lunatic (he'd probably get at most 48% of the vote against someone like Romney or Pawlenty now that Huckabee is out),

Expecting a shift of "only" 13 or 15 points there? How very restrained.

1960-1964. Barry Goldwater was no a lunatic, but he got connected to extreme-sounding positions and rhetoric. But what if the Republican nominee is an honest-to-Birch nutcase who resuscitates McCarthyism against liberals?  I can just imagine Kansas choosing sober, pragmatic liberalism over some lunatic-fringe demagoguery. To say that Kansas wouldn't vote for a fascist running as a Republican is like saying that Massachusetts wouldn't vote for a Marxist running as a Democrat.    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is an interesting point that I'd love to learn more about! Which of the 4 GOP held seats in Kansas do you expect Democrats to "shift" with a "somewhat-sane Republican" nominee?
[/quote][/quote]

It's the aftermath of the mad proposal to privatize Medicare -- something that can't  be done except by giving the assets to some profiteering monopolist who would gut service and raise costs for captive 'policy-holders' far beyond the means of most current recipients. The Congressional GOP has bit into a political disaster.

Medicare is a prime example of a 'socialist' program that not only works better than private business could ever do for efficacy and cost, and that has the trust of people who consider themselves 'conservatives' on many other issues. Say what you want about government-run bureaucracies, but they seem to to run far better than cartels and trusts designed solely to fleece clients. Privatization of government programs to allow competition as an alternative to hide-bound bureaucracies makes sense. Privatization of the public sector on behalf of crony capitalists is a disaster for all but the would-be crony capitalists.

...Kansas has four Congressional representatives, all Republicans. For even one of them to be defeated -- a possibility if the Republicans can't backtrack fast enough on privatization of Medicare would be a symptom of a loss of the House. But remember -- GOP extremism is better defined in the House of Representatives than among some former and current Governors who have no ties to the current House. "One here, one there, two here, three there" is more a reference to states much less R-leaning than Kansas, where Republicans made House gains in 2010... like Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida, and Michigan. Maybe Georgia and Missouri as well.

The Democrats have a better chance of winning the two House seats of Republicans in New Hampshire than one in Kansas... but it would take 'only' 27 House seats to shift from R to D for the Democrats to regain the House, and Kansas might be one of those states in which Republicans do not lose a House seat when 30 lose theirs. 

Barry Goldwater may have said:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

But I would remind you that political extremism in the pursuit of profit is a vice, and laxity in the defense of the most helpless is no virtue. 

[pbrower2a]

Ohio, Texas updates:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mike Huckabee and The Donald, who have apparently dropped out of consideration, are not included in this poll. Although the poll shows a sample of prospective voters who voted more for John McCain than for Barack Obama in 2008 (Obama won, of course, which is not shown in this sample), President Obama would win re-election against any imaginable Republican nominee. PPP notes that his margin against Mitt Romney is about the same as that against John McCain in 2008.

The new Senator from Ohio is yet to make much of an impression, but it isn't a good first impression. Rob Portman has his work cut out for him

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Much can change in five years,  but Rob Portman shows few signs of being an up-and-coming leader in the Senate., in case anyone is interested.   Nothing is said of the Governor, but it was well said the last time.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_OH_0524513.pdf

Texas update (Texas Tribune, University of Texas):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Governor isn't doing very well any more, but that relates to a different map:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/uttt-201105-summary-day2.pdf

No real change.

Current map:
 

Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60%-69% or higher disapproval); 90% red if >70%
40-42% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
43% to 45% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Yellow  
46-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow  
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)
<50%  Approval greater: 20% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-59%: 60% Green
60%+: 80% Green


Months (All polls are from 2010 or 2011):

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

 

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), or more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Partisan polls and polls for special interests (trade associations, labor unions, ethnic associations) are excluded.

Z- no recent poll

Or here:

MY CURRENT PREDICTION OF THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

(before any campaigning begins in earnest)

assuming no significant changes before early 2012 -- snicker, snicker!

           
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 144
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   81
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 54
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 40
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 46
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 32
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   48



44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 45%, 5% at 46% or 47%, 4% between 48% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 52% or 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

This model applies only to incumbents, who have plenty of advantages but not enough to rescue an unqualified failure.


But --

I have added a yellow category for states in which President Obama defeats all recognized major GOP nominees (so far Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, Palin, and where available, Thune, Daniels, Christie, and Pawlenty). This will be a yellow category supplanting those in pale blue or and white.

I am also adding a green category for those states that would otherwise be in white, pale pink, or pale blue -- maybe medium blue, as I have seen only one state in that category -- in which who the nominee is matters. This can be rescinded as one of the potential nominees drops out formally or is rendered irrelevant in primaries. I am also adding a deep green color for states in which  only the 'right' nominee has a chance. So far I will label that as "H" for Huckabee or else Obama, "R" for Romney or else Obama, or other initials as appropriate for  anyone else (Gingrich? Daniels? Thune?) should such cases emerge. A tan color is used for a tie.

             
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 144
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   81
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 60
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 3
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  10
Obama wins against all but  Romney 72
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 59
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  48  

[pbrower2a]

Quinnipiac, Florida

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1297.xml?ReleaseID=1605

It's likely that Florida is just more R than the national average, but the unique demographics of this state could distort things this time. The Republican nominee will absolutely need this state. Mitt Romney can't win this state against this approval rating, and I can easily see the deep green shades on the map for Nevada, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania vanishing at the next poll for any one of those states in view of this Florida result.  

Wisconsin:

It looks like a slip from the March poll by Rasmussen that happened during the hottest debate over the conduct of the Governor. This is more a technical adjustment than anything else. If Wisconsin is a 'swing state' in 2012, then the appropriate metaphor is that  the swinging door is hitting Republican pols in the derriere.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is still with a sample more R than the voters of 2008.

A symptom of GOP trouble in Wisconsin:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_WI_0525930.pdf



Current map:
 

Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60%-69% or higher disapproval); 90% red if >70%
40-42% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
43% to 45% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Yellow  
46-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow  
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)
<50%  Approval greater: 20% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-59%: 60% Green
60%+: 80% Green


Months (All polls are from 2010 or 2011):

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

 

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), or more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Partisan polls and polls for special interests (trade associations, labor unions, ethnic associations) are excluded.

Z- no recent poll

Or here:

MY CURRENT PREDICTION OF THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

(before any campaigning begins in earnest)

assuming no significant changes before early 2012 -- snicker, snicker!

           
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 134
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   120
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 54
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 40
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 46
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   48



44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 45%, 5% at 46% or 47%, 4% between 48% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 52% or 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

This model applies only to incumbents, who have plenty of advantages but not enough to rescue an unqualified failure.


But --

I have added a yellow category for states in which President Obama defeats all recognized major GOP nominees (so far Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, Palin, and where available, Thune, Daniels, Christie, and Pawlenty). This will be a yellow category supplanting those in pale blue or and white.

I am also adding a green category for those states that would otherwise be in white, pale pink, or pale blue -- maybe medium blue, as I have seen only one state in that category -- in which who the nominee is matters. This can be rescinded as one of the potential nominees drops out formally or is rendered irrelevant in primaries. I am also adding a deep green color for states in which  only the 'right' nominee has a chance. So far I will label that as "H" for Huckabee or else Obama, "R" for Romney or else Obama, or other initials as appropriate for  anyone else (Gingrich? Daniels? Thune?) should such cases emerge. A tan color is used for a tie.

             
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 134
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   120
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 60
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 3
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  10
Obama wins against all but  Romney 43
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 59
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  48  

[pbrower2a]

pBrower, can you remind me what advantages you give to Obama (because of his incumbent status).

Incumbency cannot save the mistake of the previous election who has proved less than up to the job, the one who endures diplomatic or economic debacles, the one who became President without ever having been elected to even statewide office, the one with few achievements that people can pin down, or the fellow whose agenda is fully accomplished with no possibility of a coherent program for a Second Act. 8 of 13 incumbent Presidents seeking re-election were re-elected; five weren't. To be sure, the most marginal re-election (Dubya) got away with what he got away with, but even he knew how to get his campaign apparatus in gear.

So what advantage does an incumbent have?

1. He has won the office before, which may not be so much an indication that he will win again as it is that he knows how to campaign if he must. Such is an advantage for an incumbent over a challenger in most races. If he never won a campaign for high office, then he isn't in high office as an incumbent. Gerald Ford is the obvious exception.

2. Incumbents either run on their records and win or run from those records and lose. This President has a record to run on.

3. The President may be no more adept a campaigner in 2012 than in 2008 -- but he can easily get a campaign out of mothballs little the worse for wear.  The conflicting loyalties that often exist in a challenger's campaign apparatus just won't be there. People on the campaign will have much the same message and won't confuse people.

2016 will be very different for the Democrats because there will be no obvious successor.  That should be obvious. 

[pbrower2a]

pBrower, can you remind me what advantages you give to Obama (because of his incumbent status).

Incumbency cannot save the mistake of the previous election who has proved less than up to the job, the one who endures diplomatic or economic debacles, the one who became President without ever having been elected to even statewide office, the one with few achievements that people can pin down, or the fellow whose agenda is fully accomplished with no possibility of a coherent program for a Second Act. 8 of 13 incumbent Presidents seeking re-election were re-elected; five weren't. To be sure, the most marginal re-election (Dubya) got away with what he got away with, but even he knew how to get his campaign apparatus in gear.

So what advantage does an incumbent have?

1. He has won the office before, which may not be so much an indication that he will win again as it is that he knows how to campaign if he must. Such is an advantage for an incumbent over a challenger in most races. If he never won a campaign for high office, then he isn't in high office as an incumbent. Gerald Ford is the obvious exception.

2. Incumbents either run on their records and win or run from those records and lose. This President has a record to run on.

3. The President may be no more adept a campaigner in 2012 than in 2008 -- but he can easily get a campaign out of mothballs little the worse for wear.  The conflicting loyalties that often exist in a challenger's campaign apparatus just won't be there. People on the campaign will have much the same message and won't confuse people.

2016 will be very different for the Democrats because there will be no obvious successor.  That should be obvious. 

Thanks.  Now how exactly do you add percentage points to the state approval ratings?

It's from a piece by Nate Silver. He is usually right.

6% is roughly the gain that a typical Senator or Governor, and maybe an at-large Congressional Representative gains in vote share during a campaign once the incumbent is in campaign mode. That is an average. Some do better; some don't do so well. That assumes an "average" challenger, no third-party challenge, no breaking scandal, average economic conditions, and reasonable competence as a campaigner. This applies to incumbents with approval from the mid 30s to the mid 60s. Those with approval ratings below the mid 30s almost never run for re-election.  

I would have expected reversion to the mean -- basically that all incumbent politicians tend toward 50%. But those with 50% or higher approval usually gain. They still campaign, and they usually add about 6% from approval to vote share. This applies just as much to Jon Huntsman (really high) or Rick Santorum in 2006 (disaster). Santorum was in deep trouble from the winter of 2006, but he actually gained a little in his effort to get re-elected. He still got creamed. 44% approval suggests about a 50% chance of winning by getting 50% of the relevant votes cast. Chances drop off dramatically for those whose approval ratings are below 44% and rise to near 100% for those with higher percentages of approval.  

Of course it is possible for an incumbent to have 50% approval and lose if everything goes wrong, as for George Allen in 2006. He had an unusually-strong opponent, he had his "macaca" moment, and his staffers beat up a heckler... so if anyone wants an example of how to lose what should be a sure hold of elective office, then there it is.

Now for the Presidency -- a 44% approval rating suggests about a 50% chance of getting 50% or more of the total relevant votes -- again an estimate by Nate Silver on far fewer data points.  There are fewer Presidents running for re-election. Nationwide gains for the President are likely muted because Wyoming isn't exactly Vermont.

Here's how I model the general campaign. Incumbent Presidents obviously never win more than 62% of the popular vote, so if President Obama has an approval rating of 56% eleven months from now, he is not going to have the biggest landslide ever in the percentage of popular vote. Dubya had what looked like poor approval ratings in April 2004 -- mid forties, as I recall -- yet he still won. Hardly anyone confuses him with John Kennedy for charisma or Ronald Reagan as a communicator. Yet he won.  

Now for the States. If a Governor or Senator doesn't campaign outside his own state he typically still has the habit of campaigning. But Presidential candidates and their campaign teams have limited resources that they must use judiciously let they waste them. So let's say the approval ratings are like this for  President Obama in August 2012:  

Oklahoma 33%
Texas       40%
Arizona     45%
Missouri    47%
Ohio         50%
Iowa        52%
Maine       56%
Oregon     59%
Maryland  66%

I'm not saying that that is where the approvals will be. So where will the President make campaign appearances and where will his campaign buy advertising time?

He probably never had a chance in Oklahoma or Texas, so those are out of consideration and probably have been for some time.  Maryland, Oregon, and now Maine are probably done deals,  and there is no obvious purpose to trying to win 65-70% of the vote in those states. Arizona? Less than two months away from the election and not the deciding state, it probably gets abandoned. The buys of air time stop and the personal appearances go elsewhere.

Missouri is still tempting, but at that point the President may have other concerns than flipping a state that he barely lost in 2008.  Iowa is close to being a sure thing, but not quite there. Ohio... Ohio... Ohio...    

But back to the time when the campaigning begins. There can be surprises. But all in all he is unlikely to turn a 38% approval rating in one state into a 50% vote share, and it is pointless for him to try to turn a 67% approval rating into 70% of the vote. Think of the Presidency as 50 state races, a district-wide race in DC, and five Congressional races. Some races will get more attention than others because they might decide between victory and defeat. I mute the effect for those states in which the President's approval rating is above 45% and figure that any state in which he has an approval above 52% is not a likely loss. Sure, a state with an approval rating in the mid-fifties can get shaky... but the model gives plenty of potential for a rebound. A state with an approval rating between 40% and 47% will at least be tempting. Below 40%? Don't bother.    

[pbrower2a]

Interesting, thanks.

You're welcome. It is a model, and I have no statistical evidence to back it.  Whether it works or not this time may depend upon the personality and achievements of the President -- for which nobody has any objective fact.

 

[pbrower2a]

Obama's approval ratings are incredibly weak considering that he won with 53% of the vote.

Even if he wins in 2012, he'll probably end up being the only incumbent in the last 100 years other than Wilson to win with a smaller percentage of the vote than he won his first term with.

I still think he loses and potentially loses big.

Approval is a tough standard. In general, an incumbent Governor or Senator typically gains about 6% vote share from approval between the primary and the general election. 6%? That sounds like a lot -- but remember -- governing and campaigning are very different entities.

46/45 is still good enough that with an 'average' campaign he will get 52% of the vote share with which he can't lose. If current statewide polls are true, then the President will win roughly as he did in 2008.

President Obama can still be defeated if certain things happen -- a personal scandal, a severe meltdown in the economy, or an unrelieved military or diplomatic debacle. But time is running out for any of those. The potential GOP candidates are unusually weak; the GOP majority in the House is now wildly unpopular. GOP governors in a swath of stats from Iowa to new Jersey are incredibly unpopular -- and just look at Florida. Do you think that any Republican nominee for President will want to appear on a podium with Governors Scott, Walker, Snyder, Corbett, or Christie? Nobody likes a loser.

If you think that President Obama has a weak chance of winning re-election, then just look at Dubya, the lowest-achieving President since Jimmy Carter. Dubya had an approval rating in the mid-to-high forties throughout most of 2004... and still won. So why should Dubya win and Obama lose?

President Obama has done most of what one expects a President to do and get re-elected. He has an extensive record of legislative achievements. He has avoided scandals. He has presided over an improving economy for most of his first term. He has gotten us less involved in foreign wars without an obvious defeat. All that remains is that certain negatives don't happen.

Don't count on an economic meltdown; there's no bubble to burst, as the one that could burst about five years ago did -- before he was elected. This President is a stickler for legal, procedural, and diplomatic niceties; he clearly pays attention to intel. When Sarah Palin said

"If we had a real leader instead of a Professor of Constitutional Law (basically things would be better)"

she vastly underestimated this President.

 We are beginning to see why lawyers dominate the Presidency and not other certifiably-smart people (like physicians, engineers, research scientists, journalists, novelists, classical musicians, prelates, and certified public accountants) as President. Lawyers are competitive generalists adept at winning on details.  The other smart people who have more representation as President are high-ranking military officers (so far only Army Generals, but I can imagine Navy Admirals)  are competitive generalists who can win on a detail.  We had one college professor (W. Wilson) and he got mixed results.

So far he seems to win much as he did in 2008 against Romney and pulls off a landslide against just about anyone else.
 

[pbrower2a]

So you are comparing Obama's 2011 numbers to Bush's 2004 numbers?   The proper comparison is between Obama's 2011 numbers and Bush's 2003 numbers and Bush is wins that comparison easily.

There is no perfect analogy. George W. Bush was riding the good will related to early ground wins in Iraq -- before the guerrilla warfare began and started killing so many Americans. President Obama has not had approval ratings as inflated as those of Dubya. "Steady as she goes" will be adequate until campaign season begins.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless you fail to count "incompetence" and "dishonesty" as baggage, in which case Dubya is overloaded. The great 2002 midterm -- the result of 9/11. I have seen plenty of articles suggesting that Dubya was one of the worst Presidents in American history that don't even mention ideology. Those that castigate President Obama center on his agenda. So it was with Ronald Reagan, and Reagan still won big in 1984.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But those are habits that attorneys need! Most others get away with some finagling, as you can see with some of the professions that I mentioned. Nothing says that one must be a superb attorney to be a good President (example: Truman, but somehow I think that Truman would have been a fine attorney). If you can't see the counterargument then you can't recognize a rash action for consequences beyond the objective.

Case: I look at the gangland-style hit that put an end to Osama bin Laden. I can imagine what went through the mind of the President -- most notably, "what can go wrong?" There could have been a Pakistani military guard present in a place full of Pakistani army officers. That might have made the hit fail not only but to kill Pakistanis that the President had no desire to harm... and perhaps turn Pakistan into a new Iran.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So he went into elected public office. Of course, the most lucrative area of legal practice is corporate law... if he had been greedy and materialistic, then he would have been good at it.

[pbrower2a]

Gallup has a tool for comparing and contrasting the approvals of Presidents. The closest analogues for President Obama are Presidents Reagan and Clinton. The charts of their approval ratings are so similar that the difference looks at all times but the first 200 days. Differences  look like random noise for our  40th, 42nd, and 44th Presidents.  

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

Two of the three were re-elected decisively. The other is President Obama.

[pbrower2a]

Yeah, the country is going to embrace this beyond mediocre president and he will win by the same amount. Where's that "era of good feelings" you were predicting pbrower?

Sure, he is beyond mediocre, but probably not as you want the term to mean. So far this President has been able to avoid scandals and military or diplomatic blunders. With cooperative majorities in the 111th Congress he has gotten much legislative activity passed. Osama bin Laden is dead without undue complications. The economy hasn't tanked, and in the absence of a speculative bubble (the President may be lucky that it tanked when it did) there is little chance of another economic meltdown.

I already see the GOP having so bungled its message in the 112th Congress that few of its politicians are in position to challenge the President.  In view of some of the extreme and callous positions that the GOP has taken in Congress, the 2010 elections could be a Pyrrhic victory  for the GOP.

A new Era of Good Feeling? The GOP still has the money and corporate power behind it. That said, many elected Republicans are incredibly unpopular. I look at the gap between President Barack Obama and some Republican Governors and approval for Congress as a whole with the Republican majority and Republicans in Congress... there is no good feeling. This isn't the 1820s all over.

People are fussier about politics than they used to be. In view of what Dubya got away with, that is a very good thing. But that said, if the President has 50% approval on Halloween 2012 and Congressional Republicans have approval ratings in the thirties, then guess how that works. If we had another President as incompetent as Dubya, then we would be in big trouble.

I suggest that you check out this page

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

and overlay the approval ratings for Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and Obama. So far the difference between the three is best described as random noise. Reagan and Carter were both re-elected by decisive margins. Why do you expect differently of President Obama?

 

[pbrower2a]

Quinnipiac, New York. New York seems pretty quiet these days, but New Yorkers also have the sort of government that they like.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1606

Polling was completed in May, so it is still lettered "E"

...the euphoria about the whacking of Osama bin Laden is surely past. Yellow-to-tan colors for Pennsylvania and New Hampshire have to look very dated now.

This weekend, PPP will poll Massachusetts and South Carolina.

Current map:
 

Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60%-69% or higher disapproval); 90% red if >70%
40-42% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
43% to 45% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Yellow  
46-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow  
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)
<50%  Approval greater: 20% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-59%: 60% Green
60%+: 80% Green


Months (All polls are from 2010 or 2011):

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

 

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), or more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Partisan polls and polls for special interests (trade associations, labor unions, ethnic associations) are excluded.

Z- no recent poll

Or here:

MY CURRENT PREDICTION OF THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

(before any campaigning begins in earnest)

assuming no significant changes before early 2012 -- snicker, snicker!

           
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 134
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   120
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 54
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 40
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 46
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   48



44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 45%, 5% at 46% or 47%, 4% between 48% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 52% or 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

This model applies only to incumbents, who have plenty of advantages but not enough to rescue an unqualified failure.


But --

I have added a yellow category for states in which President Obama defeats all recognized major GOP nominees (so far Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, Palin, and where available, Thune, Daniels, Christie, and Pawlenty). This will be a yellow category supplanting those in pale blue or and white.

I am also adding a green category for those states that would otherwise be in white, pale pink, or pale blue -- maybe medium blue, as I have seen only one state in that category -- in which who the nominee is matters. This can be rescinded as one of the potential nominees drops out formally or is rendered irrelevant in primaries. I am also adding a deep green color for states in which  only the 'right' nominee has a chance. So far I will label that as "H" for Huckabee or else Obama, "R" for Romney or else Obama, or other initials as appropriate for  anyone else (Gingrich? Daniels? Thune?) should such cases emerge. A tan color is used for a tie.

             
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 134
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   120
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 60
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 3
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  10
Obama wins against all but  Romney 43
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 59
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  48  

[pbrower2a]

For what it is worth:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[pbrower2a]

Not worth a lot, because Rasmussen's likely voter sample is now about 37% GOP and 33% DEM or something like this -> see one of my posts above.

Basically an electorate slightly more R than that of 2010. Why does that make about as much sense as expecting the WCTU to start pushing beer?

[pbrower2a]

Foretaste on Minnesota. Which one of these looks like the most likely first President of the United States from Minnesota? (Hubert Humphrey is obviously no longer available).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The current Senator will have to wait until 2016. The quibble on the difference between approval and favorability is slight in contrast to the obvious.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MN_0602.pdf

PPP, which hadn't polled Minnesota since December, will be releasing approvals on the President in Iowa and Minnesota this week.

[pbrower2a]

Iowa, PPP.  Probably off the table for any GOP nominee for President in 2012, with President Obama likely winning it about as he did in 2008 against Romney. Others are barely worth mentioning. Still a May poll.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Current map:
 

Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60%-69% or higher disapproval); 90% red if >70%
40-42% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
43% to 45% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Yellow  
46-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow  
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)
<50%  Approval greater: 20% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-59%: 60% Green
60%+: 80% Green


Months (All polls are from 2010 or 2011):

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

 

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), or more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Partisan polls and polls for special interests (trade associations, labor unions, ethnic associations) are excluded.

Z- no recent poll

Or here:

MY CURRENT PREDICTION OF THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

(before any campaigning begins in earnest)

assuming no significant changes before early 2012 -- snicker, snicker!

           
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 134
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   126
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 48
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 40
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 46
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   48



44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 45%, 5% at 46% or 47%, 4% between 48% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 52% or 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

This model applies only to incumbents, who have plenty of advantages but not enough to rescue an unqualified failure.


But --

I have added a yellow category for states in which President Obama defeats all recognized major GOP nominees (so far Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, Palin, and where available, Thune, Daniels, Christie, and Pawlenty). This will be a yellow category supplanting those in pale blue or and white.

I am also adding a green category for those states that would otherwise be in white, pale pink, or pale blue -- maybe medium blue, as I have seen only one state in that category -- in which who the nominee is matters. This can be rescinded as one of the potential nominees drops out formally or is rendered irrelevant in primaries. I am also adding a deep green color for states in which  only the 'right' nominee has a chance. So far I will label that as "H" for Huckabee or else Obama, "R" for Romney or else Obama, or other initials as appropriate for  anyone else (Gingrich? Daniels? Thune?) should such cases emerge. A tan color is used for a tie.

             
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 134
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   126
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 54
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 3
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  10
Obama wins against all but  Romney 43
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 59
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  48  

[pbrower2a]

Georgia, a Republican poll:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_135/Georgia-Barack-Obama-Electoral-Chances-206245-1.html

http://landmarkcommunications.net/team

This poll is not really an approval poll -- but it directly contradicts (really supersedes) a matchup poll in which President Obama loses to Romney but nobody else. This matchup effectively suggests that Georgia is a likely pickup by President Obama against any imaginable GOP nominee, now including Mitt Romney.



Current map:
 

Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60%-69% or higher disapproval); 90% red if >70%
40-42% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
43% to 45% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Yellow  
46-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow  
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)
<50%  Approval greater: 20% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-59%: 60% Green
60%+: 80% Green


Months (All polls are from 2010 or 2011):

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

 

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), or more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Partisan polls and polls for special interests (trade associations, labor unions, ethnic associations) are excluded.

Z- no recent poll

Or here:

MY CURRENT PREDICTION OF THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

(before any campaigning begins in earnest)

assuming no significant changes before early 2012 -- snicker, snicker!

           
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 134
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   126
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 48
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 40
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 46
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   48



44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 45%, 5% at 46% or 47%, 4% between 48% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 52% or 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

This model applies only to incumbents, who have plenty of advantages but not enough to rescue an unqualified failure.


But --

I have added a yellow category for states in which President Obama defeats all recognized major GOP nominees (so far Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, Palin, and where available, Thune, Daniels, Christie, and Pawlenty). This will be a yellow category supplanting those in pale blue or and white.

I am also adding a green category for those states that would otherwise be in white, pale pink, or pale blue -- maybe medium blue, as I have seen only one state in that category -- in which who the nominee is matters. This can be rescinded as one of the potential nominees drops out formally or is rendered irrelevant in primaries. I am also adding a deep green color for states in which  only the 'right' nominee has a chance. So far I will label that as "H" for Huckabee or else Obama, "R" for Romney or else Obama, or other initials as appropriate for  anyone else (Gingrich? Daniels? Thune?) should such cases emerge. A tan color is used for a tie.

             
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 134
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   126
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 70
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 3
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  10
Obama wins against all but  Romney 43
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 43
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  48  

[pbrower2a]

This is why I still need to see something solid out of PA... that map just looks wrong...

I concur. I saw a bunch of states become more pro-Obama in the aftermath of the killing of Osama bin Laden. New York voted about 10% more for President Obama than did Pennsylvania. I just cant imagine New York approving the President by an amount in the low sixties while Pennsylvania approves of the President in an amount in the low forties. I see President Obama showing more recent approval ratings in the high forties in Arizona, Georgia, and Ohio, which is consistent with the President winning each of those states -- and South Carolina and Missouri in the mid-forties.

The most recent poll in Pennsylvania isn't so much wrong (it was probably right in its time)  as it is dated. It showed at a time when the President was at a low point in approval ratings. The only alternative explanation that I can find is that Pennsylvania really is going R even as states like Virginia, North Carolina, and Ohio are going D.

Until I see a poll that supersedes the most recent poll in Pennsylvania, the one that I now have stays in place.

As for New Hampshire -- Mitt Romney now has his domicile there. Maybe he has some Favorite Son effect working for him; such could be enough to swing the state from 54-45 Obama to about 54-45 Romney. All in all I think that in his case any Favorite Son effect would be weak there; he has never held statewide office there (although he did in a neighboring state).   

[pbrower2a]

PPP, Minnesota. Last polled in December.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MN_0606.pdf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

President Obama wins at least 50% of the vote with gaps of at least 10% against any Republican:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...except against Pawlenty, against whom he still locks up a majority against a possible Favorite Son

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and the unlikely scenario of a three-way race with Jesse Ventura as an independent, in which the President wins the state with a 'mere', but large and decisive plurality:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jesse Ventura would take more votes from President Obama than from Mitt Romney. This state might not be as overwhelmingly D as states like Vermont and Rhode Island , but it is probably as stable as any State. I figure that it is going to give about 50% of the vote to a Democratic nominee in a Republican landslide for the Presidency (1984) or about 57% to the Democratic landslide for the Presidency in which the Democrat wins 60% of the vote.    



Current map:
 

Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60%-69% or higher disapproval); 90% red if >70%
40-42% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
43% to 45% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Yellow  
46-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow  
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)
<50%  Approval greater: 20% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-59%: 60% Green
60%+: 80% Green


Months (All polls are from 2010 or 2011):

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

 

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), or more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Partisan polls and polls for special interests (trade associations, labor unions, ethnic associations) are excluded.

Z- no recent poll

Or here:

MY CURRENT PREDICTION OF THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

(before any campaigning begins in earnest)

assuming no significant changes before early 2012 -- snicker, snicker!

           
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 134
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   126
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 48
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 40
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 46
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   48



44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 45%, 5% at 46% or 47%, 4% between 48% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 52% or 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

This model applies only to incumbents, who have plenty of advantages but not enough to rescue an unqualified failure.


But --

I have added a yellow category for states in which President Obama defeats all recognized major GOP nominees (so far Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, Palin, and where available, Thune, Daniels, Christie, and Pawlenty). This will be a yellow category supplanting those in pale blue or and white.

I am also adding a green category for those states that would otherwise be in white, pale pink, or pale blue -- maybe medium blue, as I have seen only one state in that category -- in which who the nominee is matters. This can be rescinded as one of the potential nominees drops out formally or is rendered irrelevant in primaries. I am also adding a deep green color for states in which  only the 'right' nominee has a chance. So far I will label that as "H" for Huckabee or else Obama, "R" for Romney or else Obama, or other initials as appropriate for  anyone else (Gingrich? Daniels? Thune?) should such cases emerge. A tan color is used for a tie.

             
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 134
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   126
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 70
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 3
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  10
Obama wins against all but  Romney 43
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 43
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  48  

[pbrower2a]

Obama still heavily underwater in Pennsylvania.

http://grassrootspa.com/blogcore/pdf/Toplines-Media-Statewide-June2011.pdf

President Obama’s job approval rating in Pennsylvania is a negative 48% to 41% (disapprove to approve), which reflects an even further decline in the percentage of those who approve of his job performance when compared with his 45% job approval score from our March Statewide Omnibus Poll.

When asked if they think President Obama deserves reelection, 43% say he has done his job well enough to deserve reelection, while 50% say it is time to give a new person a chance.



Of course he won with a very odd coalition. Kerry would have lost if he performed at Obama levels in southwest PA.

That would explain much. Aside from greater Pittsburgh, southwestern Pennsylvania is demographically much like West Virginia, a state that Barack Obama lost badly for a Democrat. He did extremely well in the suburban areas of Philadelphia in 2008, drawing away some traditional Republican voters who until then reliably voted with their bosses on such issues as taxes and regulation.

A Republican nominee can win this state if he can establish a message of hope based upon trust in corporate power and the (alleged) beneficence of elites, which was demonstrated in the election of Pat Toomey as Senator in 2010 -- Pat Toomey, former head of the Club for Growth, and about as pure a corporatist as there is.

Economic desperation can lead people to vote for a very flawed savior. A drowning man grasps at a viper.

   

[pbrower2a]

If Obama doesn't win PA, which is looking ever likely, I don't think he'll win re-election. Nice to see my boy, Mitt, pull level with him in the overall polls too (although still quite early).

If Pensylvania is swinging Republican, Obama could compensate elsewhere.  

Good luck: http://articles.philly.com/2011-05-15/news/29545905_1_independent-voters-pennsylvania-poll-pennsylvania-voters

Also, NC? VA? Come on now.

PS: Can someone please tell me why we inverse the colors on this forum? It's beyond irritating.

1. The polls that showed President Obama holding an approval rating in the low forties in Pennsylvania came when he was doing badly in polls nationwide. Since then, Osama bin Laden has met the Great Satan. There are now May polls for Pennsylvania, but those for some neighboring (New York and Ohio) and near-neighboring (Virginia) states have shown the President with much higher approval ratings. The last one for New York State showed the President with an approval rating in the low sixties. Pennsylvania is about 10% less Democratic than New York,  so...I figure that the April polls for Pennsylvania, if right at the time, are dated. The most recent polls for Presidential approval in Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, and North Carolina are higher. But those are more recent than the latest polls for Pennsylvania.  

2. Pennsylvania gets polled often because it is large, because it is critical, and because it has no obvious analogue.  If you should see an approval rating of 52% for Pennsylvania, then don't be surprised.  

3.  If you notice my maps I show Pennsylvania winnable by a Republican nominee -- but only by Mitt Romney. Even at the low point, everyone else -- Mike Huckabee was then in the mix -- was projected to lose to President Obama -- loses.

4. Pennsylvania has a relatively old population. Paul Ryan laid an egg with older voters with his proposal to privatize Medicare and Medicaid. That has yet to show.

[pbrower2a]

It's not my map.

It's the size that makes them difficult to read.

[pbrower2a]

The state in which Paul Revere took his famous ride in 1775 checks in:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What can anyone expect in one of the two states, the other Minnesota, that split as highest (winner) and second-highest (loser) for  McGovern in 1972 and Mondale in 1984?


Current map:
 

Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60%-69% or higher disapproval); 90% red if >70%
40-42% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
43% to 45% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Yellow  
46-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow  
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)
<50%  Approval greater: 20% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-59%: 60% Green
60%+: 80% Green


Months (All polls are from 2010 or 2011):

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

 

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), or more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Partisan polls and polls for special interests (trade associations, labor unions, ethnic associations) are excluded.

Z- no recent poll

Or here:

MY CURRENT PREDICTION OF THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

(before any campaigning begins in earnest)

assuming no significant changes before early 2012 -- snicker, snicker!

           
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 134
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   126
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 48
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 40
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 46
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   48



44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 45%, 5% at 46% or 47%, 4% between 48% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 52% or 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

This model applies only to incumbents, who have plenty of advantages but not enough to rescue an unqualified failure.


But --

I have added a yellow category for states in which President Obama defeats all recognized major GOP nominees (so far Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, Palin, and where available, Thune, Daniels, Christie, and Pawlenty). This will be a yellow category supplanting those in pale blue or and white.

I am also adding a green category for those states that would otherwise be in white, pale pink, or pale blue -- maybe medium blue, as I have seen only one state in that category -- in which who the nominee is matters. This can be rescinded as one of the potential nominees drops out formally or is rendered irrelevant in primaries. I am also adding a deep green color for states in which  only the 'right' nominee has a chance. So far I will label that as "H" for Huckabee or else Obama, "R" for Romney or else Obama, or other initials as appropriate for  anyone else (Gingrich? Daniels? Thune?) should such cases emerge. A tan color is used for a tie.

             
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 134
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   126
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 70
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 3
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  10
Obama wins against all but  Romney 43
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 43
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  48  

[pbrower2a]

Of greater interest is the state first to secede in 1860 (but a plurality in the state now is glad that the North won the Civil War, according to a miscellaneous poll by PPP:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Current map:
 

Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60%-69% or higher disapproval); 90% red if >70%
40-42% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
43% to 45% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Yellow  
46-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow  
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)
<50%  Approval greater: 20% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-59%: 60% Green
60%+: 80% Green


Months (All polls are from 2010 or 2011):

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

 

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), or more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Partisan polls and polls for special interests (trade associations, labor unions, ethnic associations) are excluded.

Z- no recent poll

Or here:

MY CURRENT PREDICTION OF THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

(before any campaigning begins in earnest)

assuming no significant changes before early 2012 -- snicker, snicker!

           
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 134
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   126
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 48
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 40
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 46
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   48



44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 45%, 5% at 46% or 47%, 4% between 48% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 52% or 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

This model applies only to incumbents, who have plenty of advantages but not enough to rescue an unqualified failure.


But --

I have added a yellow category for states in which President Obama defeats all recognized major GOP nominees (so far Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, Palin, and where available, Thune, Daniels, Christie, and Pawlenty). This will be a yellow category supplanting those in pale blue or and white.

I am also adding a green category for those states that would otherwise be in white, pale pink, or pale blue -- maybe medium blue, as I have seen only one state in that category -- in which who the nominee is matters. This can be rescinded as one of the potential nominees drops out formally or is rendered irrelevant in primaries. I am also adding a deep green color for states in which  only the 'right' nominee has a chance. So far I will label that as "H" for Huckabee or else Obama, "R" for Romney or else Obama, or other initials as appropriate for  anyone else (Gingrich? Daniels? Thune?) should such cases emerge. A tan color is used for a tie.

             
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 134
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   126
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 70
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 3
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  10
Obama wins against all but  Romney 43
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 43
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  48  

[pbrower2a]

I think you might be adding too much to Obama.  That map is Generic R, that's Bachmann.  What would the map look like if you only added half as much as you currently do to incumbent advantages?

The lower map shows matchups, and in general those show my estimates justified. "Generic Republican" is relevant this year because the Republican Party has no candidate analogous to Ronald Reagan who has an adequately-wide appeal across a cross-section of America. "Generic Republican" defeats a Democratic incumbent President who has an approval rating just below 50% but that candidate  as a rule goes into hibernation as the first primaries and caucuses of the Presidential election begin.  It would take a Ronald Reagan to defeat President Obama now... but all in all, I think that Barack Obama has political skills closer to those of Ronald Reagan than does anyone who followed the Gipper.

The President's approval is underwater in Ohio and Georgia, yet he apparently wins against everyone there, as shown in matchups. The lower map shows Romney as the only possible winner against President Obama in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire (those polls are dated!) -- but that hardly contradicts my "add 6%" rule for states in which the President's approval rating is between 40% and 45%. That would seem to illustrate the relevance of the rule. As for Arizona, it is possible for an incumbent Senator or Governor to begin campaign season and gain less than 4% in vote share from an early approval rating. Winning the electoral votes of a State is much like running a Gubernatorial or Senatorial election... except that the Presidential nominee knows well enough to waste time or advertising money on States in which he has no chance (this time Oklahoma would be a prime example) or in sure things (New York is obvious this time). 

If anything, I am diluting the "add 6% rule" for values of approval above 46%. An incumbent Governor or Senator doesn't have much choice in what race to content; an incumbent President can pick and choose. Take a good look at Arizona: it has an open Senate seat. President Obama can lose the state's electoral votes yet score a huge win in the state -- if he can help the Democrat win that seat. If the President seems to be ahead in Michigan 53-47 and in a virtual tie in Ohio at 49-49, then where will he appear and where will his ad campaign buy more time?

The President is now governing; he isn't electioneering. That is for the best. We don't elect our politicians to simply run for re-election. We make public office attractive enough as the ultimate ego trip that those who do well enough want to run again. But to get re-elected they must first serve us well enough to seem to deserve re-election. There will be international crises. There will be natural disasters. There will be give-and-take with Congress.

Now for the obvious. The partisan sure-things don't decide the election.  In a two-way race, the worst performers got the following percentages of the vote:

Goldwater, 1964   38.47%
Landon, 1936        36.54%
McGovern, 1972    37.52%
Mondale,   1984    40.56%   
Hoover, 1932        39.65%
Carter, 1980         41.01%
Stevenson, 1956   41.97%

...which is probably close to partisan identification with the party at the time. Independents -- mostly moderates -- decide the election. Those are the most capricious of voters, and they care how the President responds to natural disasters and international crises, and how he relates to people like them. Take a good look at those electoral results for Presidential losers. Those are about how a partisan hack will do against President Obama. 

If you ask me why I mute the incumbency effect for the President, it is because even the most effective Presidents have a ceiling of about 62% of the popular vote. 

Dubya, arguably the worst President that anyone not extremely old could know, got re-elected. If he could be re-elected despite lying to get into a war for profit that had begun to go badly, having little legislative achievement (more than Carter, which isn't saying much) and basically a jobless recovery from the high-tech crash of 2002, then think of what President Obama can do.   

[pbrower2a]

Dubya, arguably the worst President that anyone not extremely old could know, got re-elected. If he could be re-elected despite lying to get into a war for profit that had begun to go badly, having little legislative achievement (more than Carter, which isn't saying much) and basically a jobless recovery from the high-tech crash of 2002, then think of what President Obama can do.   

The comparison is deeply flawed.

George Bush had a rather strong economy with unemployment at or under 5% in 2004, especially considering the Dot-Com bubble burst and 9/11. He was also extremely popular during his first term. Even in 2003, his approval rating was at time 20+ points higher than Barack Obama's ever was. (If Obama's so unstoppable in 2011 at 57%, why did liberals think Bush was so weak in 2003 at 70%?)

There is a big difference between 5% and under unemployment and 9% unemployment. Despite all of that, and a weak Democratic nominee, the election was close. If it's 9% unemployment, high gas prices, and Barack Obama vs. a formidable Republican, it's not in the bag at all.

Who will put the bell on the cat?

Who is the formidable Republican?

It would take at least another Ronald Reagan to beat President Obama.

Sure, times are tough -- but the Republicans have no workable solutions. Those 'solutions' would simply enrich elites without creating jobs.  The Republicans in Congress  are extremely unpopular -- so voting in a Republican President will seem folly to more people.

We have had the worst economic meltdown since 1929-1933. Such a meltdown precludes any quick and easy recovery.  There's just no possibility of a boom of any kind. The high gas prices have no obvious cause in politics.  Very simply, while Americans are basically replacing cars as they age, the Chinese, Indians, and Russians are putting new ones on the road. The worldwide demand for petroleum is rising, and we Americans can really do nothing about it.

Real estate has been overbuilt for at least five years. We have a glut of housing on the market. It will be ten years before there will be another housing boom.  Retailing is saturated, so don't expect any new shopping malls to pop up.  Any boom in construction is going to be on government projects like high-speed rail -- except that politicians owned by Big Oil have rejected it because it is somehow better that people pay more for and use more petroleum.   

Sure, President Obama has been less than wildly popular. But where are the usual signs of failure? A lack of legislative achievements? He got those early. Scandal? How good is your crystal ball? Military and diplomatic disasters?  Is he capricious, unreliable, or dishonest? So far...

Americans are fussier than they used to be about politics. After eight years of a disaster of a President, we shouldn't give so much leeway as we did with Dubya, who lied to get us into a costly and bungled war, who sponsored a corrupt boom that could only collapse, and who even mishandled a natural disaster. The current President is a stickler for legal formalities, procedural niceties, and historical precedents.