The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[J. J.]

  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 47%, +3. (I make that mistake all the time.)


Tied for his worse numbers ever.  It is still at the bottom edge of range.  It could be a bad sample or even normal fluctuation.  If they drop further or stay there through Sunday, there will be a problem.

[J. J.]

MO, IL, & WV

30%-39%-Dark Dark Red
40%-44%- Dark Red
45-49%- Red
tied - White
Under 50% approval but approval higher than disapproval- Yellow
50%-54%- Light Green
55%-59%- Green
60%+- Dark Green

Delaware is a tie?

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 42%, +1.

Disapprove 56%, -2.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 46%, -1.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 42%, u.

Disapprove 57%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 27%, +2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 46%, u.

[J. J.]

How early did polling companies start using strongly and somewhat wording?  Surely we could find data on Clinton and Bush.  What about the Ford-Carter-Reagan era?

It's Rasmussen and there not around in the 1970's early 1980's.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 42%, u.

Disapprove 57%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 27%, +2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 46%, u.

Those strongly dissapprove numbers show that he has a very solid bloc of the country that would never, ever vote for him.  Moreso than Clinton and certainly moreso than Reagan.

Where the comparison can be made, i.e. on Gallup, Obama has been maintaining higher negatives than his predecessors in general.  While, at points, Obama's positives have been higher, his negatives have tended to be higher at the same time.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 46%, +4.

Disapprove 54%, -3.

"Strongly Approve" is at 30%, +3.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 43%, -3.


A bad sample has dropped out.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 46%, +4.

Disapprove 57%, -3.

"Strongly Approve" is at 30%, +3.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 43%, -3.


A bad sample has dropped out.

103% ?

It´s 46-54 (+4, -3).

Gallup is at 46-46 (+2, -2) today.

Some wild swings lately ...

Thanks, I corrected it!   BYW, if anyone catches a mistake, I'll correct it.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 46%, u.

Disapprove 53%, -3.

"Strongly Approve" is at 29%, +3.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, -1.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47%, +1.

Disapprove 52%, -1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 29%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 41%, -1.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47%, u.

Disapprove 53%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 28%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 40%, +1.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45%, -2.

Disapprove 54%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 27%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 44%, +2.


The ranges from 8/1/10) have been:

Approve:  41-48 (7 points)
Disapprove:  51-58 (7 points)

Strongly Approve:  23-31 (8 points)
Strongly Disapprove:  41-47 (6 points)

Median:

A:   44.5%
D:   54.5%

SA:  27%
SD:  44%

With the exception of one low SA number, all numbers have been within MOE, of +/- 3.5%, of the median. 

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45%, u.

Disapprove 55%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 27%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 44%, -1.


[I'm having problems with my computer and have to re-install; I might miss a few days.]

[J. J.]

Pbrower, how is a 44% approval in Colorado a pure toss-up but a 45% approval in Wisconsin is lean Democrat?

An incumbent normally has a 6% advantage over a challenger during a statewide campaign (Governor, US Senate, maybe a single-district House seat) or a Presidential election.  unless he implodes through scandals, extreme gaffes, or international debacles. This advantage is not enough to rescue a failure, and it might not apply when the incumbent faces a third-party nominee on his side of the political spectrum.

The President gets plenty of attention from the media and his campaign can usually compliment the President's statements. The challenger or someone running for the open seat has no such luck.

Lets just pretend for a second that your theory makes sense...
45+6=51
That would put a Republican at around 48%. That would give Obama about a 3 point lead. According to your own "rules", lean Democrat is 5-9% margin, which is well above 3 points.

Let's start with this obvious fact: if 8 of the last 13 incumbent Presidents won re-election (I stop there because of Grover Cleveland winning the popular vote but losing the electoral vote), then incumbency must offer some advantage. It's not likely that such is pure chance. Those who lost had huge faults as a President or at least as a campaigner.

William Howard Taft was simply not temperamentally suited to be President. Herbert Hoover bungled the economic meltdown that bedeviled his Presidency. Gerald Ford had never run for any statewide  office and had never been elected Vice-President, so he didn't have a clue on how to win a Presidential election as had the usual Senators and Governors. Jimmy Carter had practically no legislative achievements. George H. W. Bush achieved about everything that anyone could ever have expected him to achieve in four years and he could never explain why he should be re-elected. Heck, Ulysses S. Grant, Calvin Coolidge, and George W. Bush could be re-elected. 

Incumbency for the President has perks  -- Air Force One, plenty of attention from the media and control of the message, the ability to take advantage of economic upturns and good international news. The incumbent usually knew how to win the first time and can ordinarily resuscitate the campaign team from the previous election. His advertising can complement events and Presidential speeches.  Those are not enough to rescue a bad President.

Nate Silver had a study at 538.com (no longer there) that showed how incumbent Senators and Governors did between 2006 and 2009, inclusively. He noted that at an approval rating of 44% the incumbent Governor or Senator had roughly a 50% chance of winning re-election, and that the chance of winning dropped off sharply; above 44% the incumbent's chance of winning rose rapidly. To be sure, one incumbent with more than 50% approval at the start of the campaign was defeated, but that was Senator George Allen, who sticks out. Then again, few incumbent politicians make the same huge gaffe the "Macaca moment" or have staffers who beat up a heckler. Sure, Allen lost to a strong opponent, but barely.

Perfect storms can happen. Many of the blatant losers were in big trouble before their campaigns for re-election began. Corzine was in the high 30s and lost; about everyone thought that he was in trouble. Sometimes low polling numbers reflect that a candidate is arrogant (Santorum), suspect (Stevens, Burns), or just not up to the job. Such is hard to recover from. Sure, there was Governor Jennifer Grantholm of Michigan who won by a landslide after having an approval rating near 40%... but the economy seemed to improve and the Democrats had a wave election to her benefit. The 6% average gain applies to those incumbents 

Bad campaigning can happen -- but I don't expect that from President Obama. He had a formidable campaign apparatus that has been in mothballs... but count on it to be out again. He will be running on his record, and he has some legitimate achievements. He may have bet that his health care reform will be more popular in November 2012 than in February 2010; so far the disapproval ratings for it have been falling.   

The pattern holds for true for incumbents with 35%, 50%, or 65% approvals alike,  so it is not recursion to the mean as one might expect (that is, everyone tending toward 50%). Incumbents almost always campaign, whether they are as far behind as John Corzine or as far ahead as Jon Huntsman; such is habit.

The pattern also applies to incumbent Presidents. Most try to win re-election by winning the popular vote, and eight of the last thirteen succeeded at it. Maybe they can shift some votes with a few well-timed and placed speeches.  Some who disapprove simply forget to vote. But it is usually gain. Maybe Carter lost support because of the Iranian hostage crisis and stagflation, but he was in trouble anyway.

President Obama can lose. He is not in the zone in which he is immune from bad economic news or some string of bad luck not of his doing. But look at the pattern that I suggest; he will actively campaign if he must, and he will campaign as it most solidifies his wins or gives him a chance to win what he must. He's not going to do much to campaign in Vermont if his approval rating there is 63% and he is not going to campaign in Oklahoma if his approval there is 27%.  But if it is 47% in Ohio, he will take plenty of trips to the Buckeye State.

 

And you whistle in graveyards too.  

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45%, u.

Disapprove 55%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 28%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 44%, u.


[I will be trying to reload today.]

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44%, -1.

Disapprove 56%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 26%, -2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 45%, +1.

All numbers still in range.

[J. J.]

West Virginia Survey of 750 Likely Voters
Conducted September 19, 2010
By Rasmussen Reports

1* How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?
18% Strongly approve
16% Somewhat approve
12% Somewhat disapprove
52% Strongly disapprove
  1% Not sure

Yikes!

Yikes, indeed!

That is probably not recoverable.

[J. J.]

PPP: West Virginia

30-64

Yikes, again!

[J. J.]

FOX News/Pulse Opinion Research/Rasmussen:

Delaware: 45-46

Nevada: 40-52

California: 45-47

Pennsylvania: 37-54

Ohio: 38-57

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/21/fox-news-polls-track-tea-party-influence-battleground-states/

Pbrower, make sure to add these.

Right -- when this one is available:

California State Survey of 750 Likely Voters
Conducted September 20, 2010
By Rasmussen Reports

1* How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?

       39% Strongly approve
       18% Somewhat approve
         7% Somewhat disapprove
       35% Strongly disapprove
         1% Not sure

...something is wrong with a "news" organization which tries to shape political life by putting out polls that it likes.

FoX News/Opinion Dynamics had objective polling in 2008 -- but NOT NOW!

If I see anything it is the statewide polarization characteristic of 2008.

I'm not sure what the poll does to "shape political life" except to indicate that Obama has a good chance of Carrying California, which every Democrat has done since 1992. 

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47%, +2.

Disapprove 52%, -2.

"Strongly Approve" is at 28%, +2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 43%, -2.

All numbers still in range.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 48%, +1.

Disapprove 51%, -1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 28%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, -1.

All numbers still in range, but at the edge of Obama's "good numbers" range.

[J. J.]

New York (Quinnipiac):

47% Approve
48% Disapprove

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1505

(lolz)

Ouch!!!

[J. J.]

New York (Quinnipiac):

47% Approve
48% Disapprove

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1505

(lolz)

Ouch!!!

If you think that's accurate I have some beach... well... you get the point.

But it's BRTD's favorite college pollster!!!! 

Actually, Q is generally extremely accurate for NY.  I'd suspect an outlier, but a little erosion in Obama's numbers there wouldn't surprise me.   

Interestingly, there only 6 point gap in the Senate race.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47%, -1.

Disapprove 52%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 29%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, u.

All numbers still in range, but at the edge of Obama's "good numbers" range.

We should know with tomorrow's numbers if these are good sample dropping out or if there has been some improvement.

If there is a big drop, I wouldn't read too much into it.

[J. J.]

The net would be a 60-70 EV gain from an Northeast, Heartland R shift, and FL VA shift to the Obama.