The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[pbrower2a]

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 127
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   146
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 68
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 74
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 15
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   10




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 127
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   139
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 90
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 38
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  11
Obama wins against all but  Romney 19
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%  10  

[pbrower2a]

A few things worth noting:

1. PPP no longer recognizes Newt Gingrich as a serious candidate now that he has no campaign staff and the finances of his campaign are in shambles. The Gingrich campaign is now strictly a fantasy world. Floridians who want a fantasy can go to a Disney resort or some less-expensive place. You are going to see me remove my predictions of matchups between President Obama and the former Speaker of the House, probably so that I can introduce those for Rick Perry.

2. The President has slipped a little from May... but not enough to lose Florida. Sure, his approval falls just short of disapproval, but he would defeat any Republican nominee that anyone can now think of. "Generic Republican" will be in hibernation in the Presidential election of 2012.

3. At this stage the matchups demonstrate that it is good enough to have an approval rating in the high forties. It is the matchups that count, as a simulation against some ideal opponent is not going to appear.

4. I see one possible fault with my model: it lumps some likely results in the area of 52-54% because of some predicting smoothing. 45-47% approval result in a prediction of 51% of the vote; 50% to 52% approval results in a prediction of 54% of the vote. I predict that the President seeking re-election will not try to 'run up the score' in popular vote where he sees himself with 55% of the popular vote and won't try to 'look good losing' where he projects to lose 55% or more of the vote.

You might try to understand why I would never expect the President to transform a 60% approval into a 66% share of the popular vote; no Presidential candidate has ever won so much as 62% of the popular vote nationwide since 1900. I assume that the opposition is not in complete disarray and still has enough of a political base to contest an election. Even FDR managed to pick up 'only' 60.8% of the nationwide vote in 1936, and LBJ won 'only' 61%
of the vote in 1964, and Nixon won 61.7% of the vote in 1972.  About a third of all voters would "never vote for a Democrat" and a third would "never vote for a Republican", or at least the sorts who get the nomination from one of the factions therein.

Even if the Republicans should nominate someone from the extremist wing, then that wing will show unusual enthusiasm. The money machine will not disappear. Someone who wins the nomination has to have the strong support of at least 25% of the population. So if someone says that Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann would lose 63-30, then one predicts something without precedent.

I have to put the fade somewhere.

5. Governor Rick Scott is a political disaster in the making for the GOP in Florida. His only imaginable asset to the GOP in an effort to win the election of the Republican nominee for President is to do voter suppression. For obvious reasons, the President is not going to go along with anything that violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that would hurt his chances of re-election.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Republicans absolutely must win Florida to have a chance to win the Presidency, and we can all be sure that the Obama campaign will not allow the election to hinge upon whether the Governor or any other political operator is able to use dirty tricks to win. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is the official standard of enforcing the 15th Amendment and some others:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No Governor wants a federal indictment awaiting him, especially for a deed that offers him no chance of personal gain or the advancement of his political career. If it is a choice between "President Obama gets re-elected and I don't go to federal prison" or "President Obama gets re-elected and I go to a federal prison"... guess which choice even Rick Scott makes. The chance that he gets away with making a difference in Florida that wins the Presidency for the Republican is very slight.

Game theory strikes again.

[pbrower2a]

I consider SurveyUSA suspect  because it rarely jibes with other polls. Soon after I have shown a SurveyUSA poll, I have almost invariably regretted doing so.

The one in Texas -- it has an oddity in that the poll shows President Obama doing unusually well in Texas, but Governor Perry also doing well. President Obama with an approval rating in excess of 50% in Texas? It is hard to believe. I wonder whether the Texas Lyceum has a bad sample. perhaps one skewed heavily Hispanic or Black.

But even if the poll is off by 6%, the poll indicates that Texas is too close to call. I err on the side of caution. Something is there.

Texas is arguably the trickiest state to poll.  I understand that PPP has polled Texas and will release results some time this week.

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

PPP finds Montana to have an electorate much more Republican  than that of 2008.   

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 127
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   146
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 68
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 77
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 15
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   10




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.

This time I have a new category in orange in which President Obama loses to every candidate despite seeming close to having a chance to win.

             
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 127
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   139
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 90
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 38
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  11
orange                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate 3
Obama wins against all but  Romney 19
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%  10  

[pbrower2a]

Montana, PPP:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

PPP finds Montana to have an electorate much more Republican  than that of 2008.   This is the only state, so far, in which President Obama is within 7% of a 50% approval rating but in which he loses to all apparent Republican contenders. It's not really close.

Did Montana get an oil and gas boom with lots of Republican voters who would vote for Tony Soprano if he were the Republican nominee?  

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 127
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   146
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 68
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 77
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 15
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   10




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.

This time I have a new category in orange in which President Obama loses to every candidate despite seeming close to having a chance to win.

             
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 127
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   139
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 90
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 38
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  11
orange                        close, but Obama loses against any major Republican candidate 3
Obama wins against all but  Romney 19
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%  10  

[pbrower2a]

Texas, PPP. This makes sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_TX_629513.pdf


New York, Quinnipiac

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1619

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can trust that no Republican really has a chance in 2012 against President Obama in New Mexico.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NM_06291118.pdf

The ARG poll of New Hampshire has no credibility. Bloomberg/Selzer is a favorability poll and thus cannot be used.



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 122
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   151
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 68
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 39
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 53
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   10




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 122
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   151
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 90
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 0
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  11
orange                        close, but Obama loses against any major Republican candidate 3
Obama wins against all but  Romney 19
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 81
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  10  

[pbrower2a]

 How is Obama going to win OH with the unemployment rate there nearly 10%? If he can't win OH, then forget about PA or IN.

As a rule I add something to the approval rating for the incumbent. Such proved right with George W. Bush, who was an awful President. Opinions on President Obama are about as divided now as they were going into the 2004 election.

I look at the matchups between the President and putative opponents, and such an addition is justifiable. The President is not likely to run against someone now (or likely to remain) a complete mystery. As I recall, President Obama had a higher disapproval rating than approval rating in Ohio (by 1%) and a tie in Pennsylvania, but in the polls that I saw, President Obama was shown winning against every candidate imaginable. Sure, if the Republicans come up with a candidate of unusual strength, they can beat President Obama, and if the President has a meltdown as a leader (scandal) or is held culpable for an economic calamity, he loses. But such has yet to happen.


As for 10% unemployment in Ohio -- voters might decide to lay blame on Republicans.
I look at the national  Gallup Presidential polls for Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan in contrast to President Obama -- and the patterns are similar enough that I can expect President Obama to win. President Obama's political skills are roughly the same as those of Clinton or Reagan... and that will say much in 2012.

President Obama now projects to win Pennsylvania and Ohio. Tellingly, the incumbent Democratic Senator from Ohio is in a strong position to win re-election after one term in a state close to the national norm, and the Republican Governor is extremely unpopular in Ohio.  

In Senatorial and Gubernatorial races, Nate Silver estimates that an incumbent usually gains about 6% from an approval rating before the campaign. Such applies just the same both to failures and winners alike.  I assume that much the same President, except that the obvious cap exists for about 62% of the maximum share of the vote because no Presidential nominee has ever won that much of the vote. But if the resident's approval rating should be 56% in April 2012, then we can be very certain that the election won't be interesting.  
    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Arizona -- President Obama lost the state by a margin less than that of the usual margin against a Favorite Son. Had the Republican nominee been anyone other than John McCain, then Arizona would have been extremely close in 2008.

But note that I see President Obama losing the state -- to Mitt Romney, and just barely. I see Romney as a good match for Arizona so far, and most other Republicans as disasters there.

Georgia -- Georgia has a heavy military presence.  Soldiers and military dependents probably voted with deference to a legitimate war hero. The Republicans have no war hero as a potential nominee. In any event, as in other Southern states, military and diplomatic issues matter greatly. President Obama seemed untested in the extreme in 2008; that is over. Not long ago President Obama projected to lose only to Romney, and another poll recently showed President Obama winning against Romney.

Tennessee -- One poll. President Obama got a 44% approval rating much as in Arizona, but he had significant gaps between himself and every potential Republican nominee. I am convinced that Mike Huckabee would win against President Obama because Huckabee is a good match against  President Obama. Mike Huckabee is perfectly suited to neighboring Arkansas, a state very similar to Tennessee in its demographics and political history.

Matchups are a check of the system. They can contradict the theory -- or refine it.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that you are right. But I now see the President winning by much-smaller numbers in some of the states that he won by gigantic margins in 2008 (but still winning them, except perhaps Nevada), holding his own in states that he won by slight-to-modest margins (except perhaps Indiana, about which I know nothing due to a lack of polls of any kind), picking up Georgia, and gaining some votes in states that he lost by gigantic margin. If I were guessing on Indiana, I would predict that the President loses the state because he is not going to campaign extensively there and statewide Republicans are going to play defense as shown in their effort to ensure about a 7-2 split in the Congressional delegation.  

Here is an oddity: President Obama got relatively few electoral votes for his margin of victory in the popular votes.  Contrast the elections of 1944 (when America wasn't as polarized in statewide voting as it is now) in which FDR utterly clobbered Thomas E. Dewey in electoral votes. President Obama could win 53% of the popular vote and 400 electoral votes against Mitt Romney if the interstate polarization weakens.

All polls suggest that the President would win decisively against a weak candidate (meaning one with weak political skills -- President Obama is a consummate campaigner and can get a superb electoral apparatus out of mothballs), and would crush a candidate who seems like a part of the lunatic fringe.

Barring the unmentionable, President Obama seems as known a political commodity as there could be. With the Republicans one has huge questions.  

....

Politicians in office have to legislate or administer. Such cuts into their approval ratings because they can't please everyone. But if they aren't abject failures in office, they usually show why they were elected in the first place. The losers among Presidents since 1900 lost either because they either rode the popularity of a strong predecessor once (Taft, the elder Bush), endured one of the worst economic meltdowns in history (Hoover), were objective under-achievers (Carter, who had practically no legislative successes), or had never been elected to any statewide office or been a high-profile cabinet member (Ford) and ran an inept campaign.

[pbrower2a]

Quinnipiac never seemed to poll Virginia before. It may be adding a state to its repertory.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically, the President still beats the strongest GOP challenger that anyone can imagine.  The good mood in the aftermath of the killing of Osama bin Laden is no more. The Republicans will need a miracle worker to defeat President Obama or some calamity for the President to win Virginia.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x5822.xml?ReleaseID=1621



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 122
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   138
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 81
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 39
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 53
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   10




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 122
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   138
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 103
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 0
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  11
orange                        close, but Obama loses against any major Republican candidate 3
Obama wins against all but  Romney 19
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 81
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  10  

[pbrower2a]

NH (UNH):

46% Approve
49% Disapprove

http://www.wmur.com/politics/28464796/detail.html

NH (PPP):

46% Approve
49% Disapprove

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NH_07071118.pdf

I guess there is consensus ...

First July poll (G).

Second, Pennsylvania, 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 122
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   134
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 77
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 39
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 53
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   10




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.

Here's the rationale:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/myth-of-incumbent-50-rule.html

...and I am less charitable to an incumbent President than is Nate Silver.


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 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 122
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   134
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 83
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 0
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  11
orange                        close, but Obama loses against any major Republican candidate 3
Obama wins against all but  Romney 23
Obama ties one candidate, but defeats everyone else  20
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 81
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  10  

[pbrower2a]

Sarah Palin, according to a "tweet" by PPP, has a  split of favorability of 32/58 in Utah.

The populated sections of Utah are in a seismic zone almost as dangerous as California, which might be good for a few metaphors.

[pbrower2a]

Sarah Palin, according to a "tweet" by PPP, has a  split of favorability of 32/58 in Utah.

The populated sections of Utah are in a seismic zone almost as dangerous as California, which might be good for a few metaphors.

Hey BRTD, there's got to be a handful of tropes to describe the style of writing that pbrower exhibits, no? Like, someone who tells a bad joke and then follows up the joke with an explanation of why it's funny, such that even those who don't think the joke is funny can appreciate the wit and intelligence of he who wrote it?

No joke is intended there. I'd like to see the poll, and when I see it there might be an interesting metaphor.

I lack one thing of being good at making jokes -- I'm not Jewish.

[pbrower2a]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_UT_7121118.pdf

Off topic, but there could be an interesting Senate race in Utah in 2012.

Utah!

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_713424.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 122
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   119
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 77
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 54
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 53
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   10




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.

Here's the rationale:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/myth-of-incumbent-50-rule.html

...and I am less charitable to an incumbent President than is Nate Silver.


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 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 122
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   119
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 83
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 0
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  11
orange                        close, but Obama loses against any major Republican candidate 3
Obama wins against all but  Romney 23
Obama ties one candidate, but defeats everyone else  35
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 81
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  10  

[pbrower2a]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 49, +1.

Disapprove 50%, -1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 26%, +3.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 38%, u.

I'd suspect a bad sample may be moving through the system; a 5 point Strongly Approve in two days is a bit high.

Wait a few days. Maybe President Obama won the budget squabble, the pitched battle that Congressional Republicans set for him.

[pbrower2a]

Wisconsin (Badger Poll):

50% Approve
44% Disapprove

http://www.uwsc.wisc.edu/BP32PressRelease2_USpols_FINAL.pdf

The Sunshine State Poll for Florida is not worth considering due to editorial bias -- and the 49% nationwide approval poll from Rasmussen. No way is Florida ever R+10! One by ARG shows some matchups involving Obama-Romney and Obama-Bachmann... but no overall approval poll.  I can easily imagine the President being underwater in Iowa now because the Republicans are campaigning actively for advantages in the primary election  and the President isn't.

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 122
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   119
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 77
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 54
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 53
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   10




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.

Here's the rationale:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/myth-of-incumbent-50-rule.html

...and I am less charitable to an incumbent President than is Nate Silver.


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 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 122
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   113
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 83
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 0
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  11
orange                        close, but Obama loses against any major Republican candidate 3
Obama wins against all but  Romney 23
Obama ties one candidate, but defeats everyone else  35
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 87
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  10  

[pbrower2a]

in before utah turns dark green

Such would still amaze me.

[pbrower2a]

This poor rating for the President is credible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Badly as President Obama appeals to Utah voters, Sarah Palin almost does as badly.

Current map:


 

Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60%-69% 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 120
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   119
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 77
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 54
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 53
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   16




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.

Here's the rationale:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/myth-of-incumbent-50-rule.html

...and I am less charitable to an incumbent President than is Nate Silver.


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 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 122
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   113
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 83
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 0
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  11
orange                        close, but Obama loses against any major Republican candidate 3
Obama wins against all but  Romney 23
Obama ties one candidate, but defeats everyone else  35
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 87
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  18  

[pbrower2a]

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.

No President gets reelected with a 40% approval rating.  

Prove it.

Counter-proof: Harry S. Truman. His approval ratings, not surprisingly, went north and south with the position of the UN forces in Korea in a frontal war with clear advances and setbacks, not to mention the prospect at one point of utter defeat. The last Gallup poll for him (September) showed his Presidency on the brink of defeat. Gallup quit publishing polls that month out of a concern that such polls might influence the results.

You do remember the headline of the Chicago Tribune:

DEWEY WINS

Some people were very confident that Harry Truman would lose  -- big -- having been such an abject failure. There was even a song made for the occasion:

Congratulations! Tom Dewey.
You won by a landslide today
Through thick and through thin
We knew you would win
'Cause who'd ever vote
To let Truman stay in!
Congratulations, Tom Dewey
Your republican dreams have come true!
Here's a victory roar
For President Number Thirty-Four!
The White House is waiting for you!

Election Day 1948 was an abject disaster for Republicans. Truman was gaining on the Republicans throughout the early autumn of 1948, and a bunch of Republican Congressmen elected in 1946 were defeated. The only big positive for the Republicans was that they held an open seat in Michigan with a young lawyer named Gerald Ford.  

[pbrower2a]

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.

No President gets reelected with a 40% approval rating. 

Prove it.

Here:

2004 Bush 48% Approval Won Reelection
1996 Clinton 54% Approval Won Reelection
1992 Bush 34% Approval Lost Reelection
1984 Reagan 58% Approval Won Reelection
1980 Carter 37% Approval Lost Reelection
1976 Ford 45% Approval Lost Reelection
1972 Nixon 56% Approval Won Reelection
1964 Johnson 74% Approval Won Reelection
1956 Eisenhower 68% Approval Won Reelection
1948 Truman stopped polling after July 1948

Looking at Bush and Ford, looks like 46-47% is the limit.

About right.

Having an effective campaign apparatus and not having an effective campaign apparatus may have been the difference between Ford 1976 and Bush 2004. Ford had no idea of how to run an effective campaign beyond a Congressional district, and the effective campaign apparatus (CREEP) of Nixon in 1972 was unusable. The Ford campaign made incredible blunders in using its resources. Ford at most would have won a nailbiter; he was not a great President, and the inflationary economy in a recession (stagflation) was not good for convincing anyone of the economic stewardship of the Administration. Dubya may have been a dreadful President, but the damage yet to do its damage had yet to manifest itself, and he got re-elected. He had been elected... sort of... but his campaign machine knew what to do.  

Add 5% to the polling for 2004 and you get the electoral result. Add 3% to the polling for 1976 and you get the result. Such is the difference between a President who had no idea of how to get elected outside a Congressional district and one had shown that he could be elected beforehand. (Of course, had the Iraq war gone badly or the speculative boom gone bust before the election, then he would have lost. He could have lost much like Jimmy Carter in 1976 had such happened).

The others:

1952 -- Dwight Eisenhower was wildly popular, but a natural ceiling of about 62% of the popular vote exists for any incumbent. Eisenhower didn't have much of a campaign, and didn't need one against the Democrat that he had defeated handily. Eisenhower fell short of that campaign largely because Southern segregationists distrusted him. They were morally wrong, but right about their observation.

1964 -- LBJ ran against someone easily depicted as a reckless extremist. He didn't need much of a campaign. The 62% ceiling for an incumbent President applies.

1972 -- Even with a ruthless campaign, Nixon was able to get 'only' about a 5% gain against someone that his campaign (and much else) depicted as an extremist.

1976 -- See above. Ford could have won against a weak challenger who wasn't that different in ideology.

1980 -- The Carter Presidency was certifiably of the weakest in post-WWII history, with few achievements to create a record and stagflation to wreck whatever chance he had of getting re-elected. The Carter campaign did the best that it could with the material that it had, gaining about 4% in the popular vote. There was an independent candidate (John Anderson) who might have cut into his vote share. Independent and third-party candidates can muck things up, and John Anderson may have won many votes of disgruntled Carter voters from 1976 who couldn't quite vote for Ronald Reagan. This one gets murky beyond saying that Carter would never have won in 1980.

1984 -- Reagan won about 58% of the popular vote, which is much less than the norm for the landslide in electoral votes that he got. It's hard to remember the re-election campaign of Ronald Reagan, so it probably wasn't great. Walter Mondale was no extremist -- a very conventional Democrat -- so the electoral circumstances weren't quite those of 1964 or 1972. No gain -- but a President who achieves his promises will win.

1992 and 1996 -- Third-party and independent candidacies muck things up. I can draw no conclusions, except that Bill Clinton would have won a bigger share of the popular vote without Ross Perot around.

2004. See above.

2012. Just watch events unfold. The electoral machine of Barack Obama and a repetition of the proved competence of this politician as a campaigner should give him about a 5% gain against his approval rating against someone that his staff can't dismiss as an extremist (probably Romney, maybe Huntsman, Pawlenty, Giuliani, or Huckabee) or about 7% against someone that his campaign can depict as an extremist (names withheld for reasons of decency). Of course opponents count, but some things about this President really are set in stone.  

[pbrower2a]

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.

No President gets reelected with a 40% approval rating. 

Prove it.

Here:

2004 Bush 48% Approval Won Reelection
1996 Clinton 54% Approval Won Reelection
1992 Bush 34% Approval Lost Reelection
1984 Reagan 58% Approval Won Reelection
1980 Carter 37% Approval Lost Reelection
1976 Ford 45% Approval Lost Reelection
1972 Nixon 56% Approval Won Reelection
1964 Johnson 74% Approval Won Reelection
1956 Eisenhower 68% Approval Won Reelection
1948 Truman stopped polling after July 1948

Looking at Bush and Ford, looks like 46-47% is the limit.

About right.

Having an effective campaign apparatus and not having an effective campaign apparatus may have been the difference between Ford 1976 and Bush 2004. Ford had no idea of how to run an effective campaign beyond a Congressional district, and the effective campaign apparatus (CREEP) of Nixon in 1972 was unusable. The Ford campaign made incredible blunders in using its resources. Ford at most would have won a nailbiter; he was not a great President, and the inflationary economy in a recession (stagflation) was not good for convincing anyone of the economic stewardship of the Administration. Dubya may have been a dreadful President, but the damage yet to do its damage had yet to manifest itself, and he got re-elected. He had been elected... sort of... but his campaign machine knew what to do.  

Add 5% to the polling for 2004 and you get the electoral result. Add 3% to the polling for 1976 and you get the result. Such is the difference between a President who had no idea of how to get elected outside a Congressional district and one had shown that he could be elected beforehand. (Of course, had the Iraq war gone badly or the speculative boom gone bust before the election, then he would have lost. He could have lost much like Jimmy Carter in 1976 had such happened).

The others:

1952 -- Dwight Eisenhower was wildly popular, but a natural ceiling of about 62% of the popular vote exists for any incumbent. Eisenhower didn't have much of a campaign, and didn't need one against the Democrat that he had defeated handily. Eisenhower fell short of that campaign largely because Southern segregationists distrusted him. They were morally wrong, but right about their observation.

1964 -- LBJ ran against someone easily depicted as a reckless extremist. He didn't need much of a campaign. The 62% ceiling for an incumbent President applies.

1972 -- Even with a ruthless campaign, Nixon was able to get 'only' about a 5% gain against someone that his campaign (and much else) depicted as an extremist.

1976 -- See above. Ford could have won against a weak challenger who wasn't that different in ideology.

1980 -- The Carter Presidency was certifiably of the weakest in post-WWII history, with few achievements to create a record and stagflation to wreck whatever chance he had of getting re-elected. The Carter campaign did the best that it could with the material that it had, gaining about 4% in the popular vote. There was an independent candidate (John Anderson) who might have cut into his vote share. Independent and third-party candidates can muck things up, and John Anderson may have won many votes of disgruntled Carter voters from 1976 who couldn't quite vote for Ronald Reagan. This one gets murky beyond saying that Carter would never have won in 1980.

1984 -- Reagan won about 58% of the popular vote, which is much less than the norm for the landslide in electoral votes that he got. It's hard to remember the re-election campaign of Ronald Reagan, so it probably wasn't great. Walter Mondale was no extremist -- a very conventional Democrat -- so the electoral circumstances weren't quite those of 1964 or 1972. No gain -- but a President who achieves his promises will win.

1992 and 1996 -- Third-party and independent candidacies muck things up. I can draw no conclusions, except that Bill Clinton would have won a bigger share of the popular vote without Ross Perot around.

2004. See above.

2012. Just watch events unfold. The electoral machine of Barack Obama and a repetition of the proved competence of this politician as a campaigner should give him about a 5% gain against his approval rating against someone that his staff can't dismiss as an extremist (probably Romney, maybe Huntsman, Pawlenty, Giuliani, or Huckabee) or about 7% against someone that his campaign can depict as an extremist (names withheld for reasons of decency). Of course opponents count, but some things about this President really are set in stone.  

Obama is vastly overrated as a campaigner.  If he was that great, he would have been able to go out in 2010 and sharply reduce Democratic losses.  In 2008, he ran a mediocre campaign and was only saved by the fact that the unemployment rate increased by over a percentage point during the campaign and that consumer confidence was so low.  No incumbent party survives that. 

Overrated?

1. He won Indiana, a state that Republican nominees for President simply do not lose. Sure, the President won under freakish circumstances, but the state was close all summer and fall.

2. He won Virginia, a state that Republican nominees for President simply do not lose, by a substantial margin. Virginia did not have one of the most ravaged economies in America.

3. He won North Carolina, a state that democrats had largely written off since 1980.

4. He did unusually well in Suburbia, suggesting that he had found a weakness in the usual appeals of Republicans in Suburbia -- tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts because your boss will be impressed.

This politician knows how to recognize weaknesses in his opposition and exploit them for every advantage more effectively than the usual nominee. He did not seek out opportunities that no longer existed.  Basically, he didn't campaign to win states that were out of reach that Bill Clinton won handily.

But even if you see his weaknesses as a politician -- basically that he can't successfully appeal to people in rural and small-town America -- you must admit that his campaign applied advertising funds effectively, cutting them off when they were futile and where the President was so far ahead (in states) that further saturation might be the difference between winning 56% of the vote and 59% of the vote.

He does not win where government services are available cheaply, so I expect him to do badly in the Great Plains states.

2010 -- he campaigned little. He was too busy with Congress. In 2012 that will be very different.

[pbrower2a]

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.

No President gets reelected with a 40% approval rating. 

Prove it.

Here:

2004 Bush 48% Approval Won Reelection
1996 Clinton 54% Approval Won Reelection
1992 Bush 34% Approval Lost Reelection
1984 Reagan 58% Approval Won Reelection
1980 Carter 37% Approval Lost Reelection
1976 Ford 45% Approval Lost Reelection
1972 Nixon 56% Approval Won Reelection
1964 Johnson 74% Approval Won Reelection
1956 Eisenhower 68% Approval Won Reelection
1948 Truman stopped polling after July 1948

You have look at when they had these numbers.  Both Reagan and Clinton hit 37% in their first term, on Gallup.  Both were in an upswing at this point, well off their lows.

What will matter more is where the President is in October 2012. One cannot predict that. One can predict, however, that he will need an approval rating in the high 40s to have a good chance at being re-elected. 48% or higher? He wins. Dubya won with that.

It doesn't matter how he gets to where he is unless it is a late free-fall (in such a case, everyone will know what is going on). This will be after substantial campaigning.

The "add 6" rule that I have derived from what Nate Silver says about incumbent Senators and Governors winning in their states applies to the beginning of a campaign season -- as an average -- for an average campaigner, with average luck on foreign affairs and economics, with average ability (for the office) as a campaigner, and an average quality of campaign staff for the office -- and an opponent of "average" ability and appropriateness for the office. The Presidency is in effect a contest of one mayoral race (District of Columbia), five congressional races (Maine and Nebraska), and fifty statewide Gubernatorial or Senatorial races.   

There might be other ways in which to lose a re-election bid for President, but since 1908 those have been five of thirteen. The losers are:


1. William Howard Taft, 1908. Not a great President; he faced a challenge from his own Party from someone who had been a certifiably-great President.

2. Herbert Hoover, 1932.  Gravely mishandled the economic meltdown of 1929-1932.

3. Gerald Ford, 1976. He had never run for any statewide office, and it shows.

4. Jimmy Carter, 1980. Underachiever as President. Stagflation and the Iranian hostage situation hurt, but any one of those three characteristics should have made him a one-term President.

5. George W. Bush, 1992. Rode the record of one of the most effective Presidents but didn't know what to do after the fall of Communism and defeating Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War.

[pbrower2a]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44, -1.

Disapprove 54%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 24%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, u.

This looks like big, real slippage.

[pbrower2a]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44, -1.

Disapprove 54%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 24%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, u.

This looks like big, real slippage.

I take it you are being sarcastic.  Maybe we have some polarization, but I'd still a few days.

No sarcasm. I don't understand why the slippage is there, but it can be real before anyone has a viable explanation.

[pbrower2a]

I'd presume that Obama's problem here is the budget negotiation. Not that I think Republicans are winning -- instead, I presume both Republicans and Obama are losing.

Possible. I see nobody coming out of these budget negotiations unscathed. It looks like a lose-lose proposition for everyone.

[pbrower2a]

Generic GOP 47%
Barack Obama 41%

http://www.rasmussenreports.co​m/public_content/politics/elec​tions/election_2012/election_2​012_presidential_election/gene​ric_presidential_ballot/electi​on_2012_generic_presidential_b​allot

Basically it is Barack Obama against someone who doesn't exist -- someone with no regional identity, someone who can bring economic miracles (like restoring the health of the housing industry promptly), and able to satisfy the Tea Party base without offending "moderates" while peeling away Democratic-leaning independent voters.  

I can think of a perfect island. It is spectacularly beautiful, has a pleasant climate, good harbors, attractive and friendly natives, and no pirates or tropical diseases. Its location is 40 North Latitude and 160 West Longitude. Good as it is, it must have the quality of existence.  

Of course there is no such island.