The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[pbrower2a]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47, u.

Disapprove 52%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 39%, -u.

As with yesterday, either some improvement for Obama, or a bad sample.

It's back to where things were when I stereotypically had full confidence in the ability of the President to get re-elected.

So much for a 'vastly-changed universe'.

Except you added a few words to the "quote."  If you had to do that, you must be convinced Obama will lose.

 I'm still looking for the trough.  I think it is likely the US will be in recession and that will be devastating for Obama.

I didn't intend to. I intended this

You must be logged in to read this quote.

to be outside the quote, as it is my material. My goof!

Sorry about that, and any unintended confusion!

[pbrower2a]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47, u.

Disapprove 52%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 39%, -u.

As with yesterday, either some improvement for Obama, or a bad sample.

It's back to where things were when I stereotypically had full confidence in the ability of the President to get re-elected.

So much for a 'vastly-changed universe'.

Except you added a few words to the "quote." If you had to do that, you must be convinced Obama will lose.

 I'm still looking for the trough.  I think it is likely the US will be in recession and that will be devastating for Obama.

If you had to make such a snarky assertion, you must be convinced that Barack Obama will actually win in a landslide!

Odysseus, go back and look at the quote.  I never wrote the last two lines, the "stereotypical" or "changed universe" lines.

I'm not yet predicting an Obama loss, but it is now clear that Obamanomics has failed.

1. I goofed in putting the "stereotypical" and "changed universe" within instead of outside of the quote.

2. There is no quick way of recovering the sort of economic growth that will satisfy most people. A booming economy is impossible now that the trust necessary for a boom is destroyed. It would be possible to get rapid economic growth, to be sure -- but few would like the means. (That is to compel people to work but give those who hire people to work no compulsion to pay those who do the work... essentially a totalitarian method out of Stalinism or National Socialism, even if it is then called "building free enterprise").

3. If we didn't have full employment during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,  then even wartime expenditures are no longer adequate for putting the unemployed back to work. We had high employment by current standards when the housing boom and subprime lending were devouring assets and offshoring of jobs were gutting the workforce except in the corrupt boom.

4. It is arguable that extreme disparities of wealth and deprivation, a core objective of right-wing economics, will compromise even the creation of wealth because the people who do the work will themselves be destitute and unable to support a consumer economy.

It is the consumer economy that serves as a check upon the worthiness of investments of capital. Sure, it is possible to create prosperity only for an elite in a society with no middle class -- think of the antebellum South -- but such is incompatible with political democracy except among the elite.      

[pbrower2a]

Pbrower2a, I'm not sure that anything has changed, poll wise.  If Obama has troughed to the maximum point, he's troughed higher than any president, except GW Bush (and yes, there were other factors in that case).  GW Bush was re-elected.

Budgetary processes are nasty; they bring about partisan bickering at its worst. Such is the same for Governor Tom Corbett (R-PA), whose polling results just shot up after the process was over, as for President Obama. Everyone gets pulled through the mud. The mud sticks far more to some politicians than to others -- like those seen as dictatorial, corrupt, or grossly incompetent. Scott Walker and Rick Scott are unlikely to recover politically from their troughs -- at least enough to be re-elected.

For good reason, electoral campaigns are not done during official budgeting -- and official budgeting is never done during an electoral campaign.

The political gridlock continues, and in 2012 American voters will decide who is culpable and vote accordingly -- after a long campaign season.  I expect the 112th Congress to be be regarded as one of the most ineffective and lowest-achieving in American history. If any incumbent President can translate a 47% approval rating into a 53% national vote share, then this is the one. He was a fine campaigner in 2008 and he will almost certainly be that again -- and he had a superb campaign apparatus now in mothballs that can be brought out quickly.

It will be a clear asset for almost any nominee for a House or Senate seat to be able to say convincingly "I will be able to work with President Obama, if necessary and appropriate, if elected (or re-elected)" in 2012... if the President seems likely to be re-elected. That could make a huge difference in Senatorial primaries in Indiana and Maine. Such may save some Republican careers -- and that is how American politics works at its best.  I miss the likes of Jacob Javits and Bob Dole. I also miss the Democratic "Blue Dogs".

[pbrower2a]

In any event, the activities of the White House "plumbers" did little harm to the approval ratings of President Nixon until deep into the second term, and only when the legal issues caved in upon Nixon. But if the such deeds as the Watergate burglary and the violation of the files of Daniel Ellsberg didn't damage Nixon, then the economic mess unfolding about as Nixon resigned would have gotten to him. Economic realities have more direct effect upon approval of the President than just about anything else.

[pbrower2a]

Gallup is 43-48 (+1, -2) today.

They also have a state-by-state approval map for the first half of 2011:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148874/Obama-Job-Approval-Higher-States.aspx

Interesting that Georgia, Mississippi and Arizona are so favorable for Obama, all other states are about as expected.

This may not be my favored map, but based upon the Gallup averages I can show all states.

Note that this is an average over time, and it may average events better than the short-term polls. Or believe what you want. This does not supersede any of my earlier polls.

Approval 53% or higher 70% red (90% if approval is above 80% -- DC only
Approval 50% or higher 50% red
Approval under 50% but higher than disapproval 30% red (tie 20%)
Approval 44%-49% but less than disapproval -- white
Approval 40%-43% but disapproval lower than 50% (green 20%)
Approval 40%-43% but disapproval  50% or higher 40% blue
Approval under 40% 60% blue (90% if under 30%)

Don't ask me to explain Oregon, New Hampshire, Mississippi, or South Dakota.

[pbrower2a]

Racial polarization.

Mississippi is extremely polarized in race and politics. To an extent not known elsewhere, the Republican Party is effectively the White People's Party and the Democratic Party is the Black People's Party. Mississippi has places with black majorities, and the polarization allows machine-boss politics characteristic of large cities even in small towns. The idea that one could vote for the other Party so that one might sweep out the crooks and under-performers is out of the question in Mississippi.  Such fosters corruption and incompetence irrespective of who the majority is. Stories of corruption among black elected officials are commonplace (white people are no better because machine politics is commonplace among whites, too), and that makes white people dread any black politician even if he isn't a corrupt member of a political machine.

The experience that  white Mississippians have with black politicians is very poor, so guess what Barack Obama reminds them of? The corrupt and incompetent hick-town black politicians who easily get re-elected nit whose political careers end when they get caught by the legal system, federal or state, for leasing a car and diverting it for use by a family member who has no official duties, collecting or soliciting bribes, or simply embezzling from the local treasury.

If Mississippi white people voted as do white people in Kentucky, to be sure a very conservative state in its politics, then Mississippi would have gone for President Obama and would never vote for so racist a politician as Trent Lott. About 40% of white Kentuckians vote Democratic... but the state has few blacks, so about the only Democratic nominees for President that Kentuckians have voted for in the last  fifty years are Southern white moderates (LBJ, Carter once, Clinton)  But Kentucky has few blacks, so the last northern liberal that Kentucky voted for was John F. Kennedy.   

[pbrower2a]

Don't ask me to explain Oregon, New Hampshire, Mississippi, or South Dakota.

But, Mississippi has been sticking out over the past year for these weird approval ratings...what is going on in the Magnolia State? Any locals care to enlighten the ignorant masses?

Must be bad polling sampling.  Mississippi is one of the few states where nationally whites are almost as much a block vote as blacks.  CNN exit polling showed 88% of whites voted for McCain, 98% of blacks voted for Obama.  I agree with pbrower2a that on a national level, the Repubs are the party of the whites and the Dems are the party of the blacks, but that is not accurate at the state level, where I do not believe there has been a Republican majority in either house since reconstruction.  In fact, in most rural areas of the state, white dems dominate local government.

From my observation, attitudes from either race have not changed.  I would expect at least 88% of whites to vote Republican and at least 95% of blacks to vote Obama.  I think this year's election will have a slightly higher ratio of white to black voters due to the lack of novelty of a black candidate (maybe 65-30 white, up from 62-33 in 2008), as a result, I would expect an easy Rep victory, probably along the lines of 58-42 or 59-41 up from 56-43 in 2008.

It could also be that white Mississippians could recognize that even if Barack Obama is a black man, he does not fit their fears of race-based cronyism and economic radicalism. He could win the state if military/diplomatic issues or natural disasters  are on center-stage (and positive for the President) or if the GOP candidate scares people on Social Security or Medicare.
But that is a gigantic "if". The last northern liberal to win the state was John F. Kennedy, and before that FDR. (I don't consider Adlai Stevenson much more liberal than Dwight Eisenhower, especially on racial issues. Blacks would have voted for Eisenhower in Mississippi... with another huge "if" attached, as they just didn't vote in Mississippi in those days).

It could also be bad sampling. Take a good look at Oregon, which would make sense if Gallup over-sampled eastern Oregon, which is about as conservative as Idaho.  

[pbrower2a]

Technically speaking this is not a Presidential approval poll, so its results will not appear on my approval map. But it has some interesting consequences.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CONC_0809.pdf

(Save this page if you want to see the results for North Carolina further down the page).

Conclusions for a critical state in 2012:

1. Coloradans don't like the Debt Ceiling deal -- by a wide margin.

2. They seem to exculpate President Obama and blame Dubya and Congressional Republicans.

3. They want a stimulus, but just don't call it a stimulus.

4. People want the super-rich to face higher taxes to solve the deficit and don't believe in "supply-side" economics anymore.

5. President Obama can get away with offering to renounce the Debt Ceiling commitments if he must... but the Republicans are stuck with the consequences.

6. Republicans can expect to lose some of Congressional seats in Colorado in 2012. It is impossible to be stuck with a raw deal for constituents -- or worse, opposing an unpopular  piece of legislation by claiming that it isn't hard-line enough -- and not face very bad effects.

7. In case anyone shouts "bias" -- the sample voted 41-50, McCain/Obama, which is about the same as the gap between McCain and Obama voters in 2008.

If things remain the same in Colorado as this poll suggests, Colorado is going to offer ugly results for Republicans in 2012.  

 

[pbrower2a]

Technically speaking this is not a Presidential approval poll, so its results will not appear on my approval map. But it has some interesting consequences.

Now, North Carolina:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CONC_0809.pdf

Note: the poll for North Carolina is on the same page as that for Colorado, only far down the page.

Conclusions for a state that the Republicans dare not lose in 2012:

1. North Carolinians don't quote give a plurality of dislike for this deal, but they dislike it much more than they like it.

2. They seem to exculpate President Obama and blame Dubya and Congressional Republicans, if not by as wide a margin as Coloradans do. But Republicans have their work cut out to hold onto the Tar Heel State.

3. They want a stimulus, but just don't call it a stimulus.

4. People want the super-rich to face higher taxes to solve the deficit and don't believe in "supply-side" economics anymore.

5. President Obama can get away with offering to renounce the Debt Ceiling commitments if he must... but the Republicans are stuck with the consequences in the event of a failure.

6. Republicans can expect to lose some of Congressional seats in North Carolina in 2012. It is impossible to be stuck with a raw deal for constituents -- or worse, opposing an unpopular  piece of legislation by claiming that it isn't hard-line enough -- and not face very bad effects.

7. PPP did not show a split between McCain and Obama voters here.

If things remain the same in North Carolina as this poll suggests, North Carolina is going to offer ugly results for Republicans in 2012. President Obama doesn't need North Carolina to win in 2012, but he can hardly fail to be re-elected if he wins it.

[pbrower2a]

The polling you posted does not adequately back up all the points you are making.

I especially would like to know which of those numbers backs up #5 for both CO and NC. Your number 2s seem switched and both seem to exaggerate the results. Number three is also a conclusion that I don't see a basis for. Four is nothing new. 6 seems presumptive, especially when redistricting isn't even been started in CO and the only people worried about losing seats in NC is the Democrats. Brad Miller is even thinking of running in the fourth against fellow Dem Brad Miller, according to "On The Record", a local political show.

It doesn't take much of a margin to swing the balance of power in the House -- as shown in 2010. Sure, redistricting can make things more difficult for Democrats -- but such redistricting damage that Republicans did to Democrats after 2000 has probably been done as much as possible.

My #5 is a presumption that if the Deficit Ceiling does more harm than good, then President Obama can more easily back away from it than can Republicans. This is one of few pieces of non-trivial legislation that Republicans have successfully passed in both houses. It is a GOP objective, and something that the President recognized as the best possible deal for the time. He can run against it if it fails, and Republicans are stuck with it.   If the President finds that his supporters want some enhanced public spending and so does the public, then guess who is out of luck.

I;m guessing on details within the states. I have never been in either, but I can read statistical evidence.

Sure, Q6 looks almost like a push poll question, so I hope that I make little of it. Mercifully it comes toward the end. The results of Q7 are likely exaggerated to some extent, but not enough to discount a 28% gap (Colorado) or a 21% gap (North Carolina).

In any event, it looks like trouble for anyone running against President Obama in 2012. As for effects on Congress -- 1  Republican loss here, 2 there, and 3 somewhere else ... add enough of them and one has enough seats shifting to create a Democratic majority. It's something that I can't rule out overall. Colorado and North Carolina are dissimilar enough that they don't exaggerate some effect related to themselves alone.

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CO_08101118.pdf

......

The President may be underwater in approval, but no imaginable republican nominee is close to defeating him.  This poll demonstrates how it is possible for the President to be underwater in the polls in a state yet have a commanding lead over every imaginable opponent in a state.  Americans are down on almost all politicians, but generally less down on the President. Maybe they are just getting fussier about results, which is a very good thing for America.

President Barack Obama would defeat Mitt Romney by almost the same margin as that by which he defeated John McCain in 2008, but win this state in a landslide against anyone else.   

Monmouth, New Jersey:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.monmouth.edu/polling/admin/polls/MUP40_1.pdf


 

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 135
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    55
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 72
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 63
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 73
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 135
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    55
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 75
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 35
Obama ties one candidate, but defeats everyone else  44
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 87
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 0
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  18  

[pbrower2a]

PPP, NC

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_0811424.pdf

New York State (Quinnipiac):

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

45% Approve (-12)
49% Disapprove (+11)

Voters split 48 - 46 percent on whether President Obama deserves reelection and say 49 - 34 percent they would vote for him over an unnamed Republican.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1636

Wat.

It will be very interesting to see what pbrower does with his map now ...

The poll comes from immediately after the budget deal. I suspect that the loss in support for the President comes from the liberal base of the Democratic Party in New York, one that considers the Deficit Ceiling deal a sell-out.  What might have worked well in a relatively-conservative state like North Carolina is a flop in New York State. Take a look at the approval for the Governor of New York in New York, who needs little compromise with such types as Senators Mitch McConnell and James DeMint:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1634

The deal is a success if it works for President Obama -- and if it is a failure should the economy begin to tank, then he will be able to renounce it at any time. All that the Republicans can possibly offer in the event of an economic downturn is exactly the sorts of economic policies that lead to an economic downturn or non-cures (basically cutting taxes for the super-rich). 

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 106
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    55
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 116
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 48
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 73
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 129
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    55
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 119
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 35
Obama ties one candidate, but defeats everyone else  29
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 87
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 0
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  18  

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CO_0811925.pdf

In case you wonder why Colorado shows so well for President Obama -- it could be that the state has been going very D this year. Note that Michael Bennett barely defeated Ken Buck in November. 

Colorado may have been about R+1 in 2008... but it is probably D+4 or so now, which is about where Minnesota is.

It could also be that Colorado Democrats are also very competent politicians.

[pbrower2a]

Utah gets to show us what 70% disapproval looks like on the map -- very clearly due to its large area.

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 106
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    55
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 116
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 48
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 73
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 106
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    55
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 119
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 35
Obama ties one candidate, but defeats everyone else  29
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 87
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 0
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  18  

[pbrower2a]

Ohio (PPP):

44% Approve
52% Disapprove

Wisconsin (PPP):

45% Approve
51% Disapprove

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will have to see how the President does against potential GOP nominees  before I post these polls on my map. I got a hint on Ohio that he would defeat anyone.

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_VT_0808.pdf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Awful, but you ought to see how the Republican field does:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is hard to see the Republicans winning the Presidency without Ohio even if they pick up Pennsylvania. Bad news in which all are culpable pulls everyone down... or should I say, a falling tide brings low all boats!

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 109
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    55
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 98
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 66
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 73
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 109
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    55
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 119
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 18
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  29
orange                        close, but Obama loses against any major Republican candidate 3
Obama wins against all but  Romney 35
Obama ties one candidate, but defeats everyone else  29
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 87
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 0
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  18  

[pbrower2a]

Every time I see pbrower's map with Nebraska still going 1 EV for Obama based on a poll from well over half-a-year ago, I lulz my pants a little bit.

The Second Congressional District of Nebraska, essentially Greater Omaha, votes very differently (about R+2) from the rest of Nebraska (probably about R+25) Democrats can win NE-02 in a good year, as shown in 2008. Of course that all changes if Nebraska is gerrymandered so that Greater Omaha is split with the rest of eastern Nebraska (NE-01, which includes Lincoln).

In 2008, NE-01 voted like Texas
              NE-02 voted like Indiana
              NE-03 voted like Wyoming.  

[pbrower2a]

Every time I see pbrower's map with Nebraska still going 1 EV for Obama based on a poll from well over half-a-year ago, I lulz my pants a little bit.

The Second Congressional District of Nebraska, essentially Greater Omaha, votes very differently (about R+2) from the rest of Nebraska (probably about R+25) Democrats can win NE-02 in a good year, as shown in 2008. Of course that all changes if Nebraska is gerrymandered so that Greater Omaha is split with the rest of eastern Nebraska (NE-01, which includes Lincoln).


In 2008, NE-01 voted like Texas
              NE-02 voted like Indiana
              NE-03 voted like Wyoming.  

If you say NE-02 is going to vote like Indiana, then your map says that Obama is going to win Indiana by over 10 points.

No.

I only said that NE-02 voted like Indiana in 2008. I have said nothing about Indiana as a likely state for either Party in 2012 due only to a paucity of polls. Indiana has outlawed automated polls. There was a poll for NE-02 and it was decidedly pro-Obama in result while the rest of the state firmly rejected the President.

This of course does not reflect the current downturn in support for the President in the aftermath of the Debt Ceiling fiasco. If the approval rating for the President returns to the high 40s, then NE-02 is competitive. Republicans who are no less culpable are doing badly, too.

[pbrower2a]

New Jersey (Quinnipiac)

44% Approve
52% Disapprove

New Jersey voters say 49 - 45 percent that Obama does not deserve to be reelected, but say 45 - 37 percent that they would vote for Obama over an unnamed Republican challenger in the 2012 presidential race.

From August 9 - 15, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,624 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.4 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1299.xml?ReleaseID=1637

We are no longer a happy people.

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 109
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    41
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 98
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 80
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 73
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 109
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    55
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 105
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 18
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  43
orange                        close, but Obama loses against any major Republican candidate 3
Obama wins against all but  Romney 35
Obama ties one candidate, but defeats everyone else  29
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 87
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 0
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  18  



[/quote]

[pbrower2a]

Utah gets to show us what 70% disapproval looks like on the map -- very clearly due to its large area.

There are a couple concerns I have with the way you are doing things.

Firstly, the Nate Silver "analysis" of the 50% rule is tragically flawed.  

Most of the data he used was from 2006 - a very good year for the Dems politically. The Dems also had more folks up for reelection in the Senate than did the GOP.   During the 2006 campaign, the political ground shifted quite substantially in favor of the Dems and away from the GOP... so the fact that many (mostly Dem( incumbants did better than their early polling would have suggested is almost certainly the result of the forces of the political tide, and not the consequence of the "50% rule is crap" theory he might be peddling.  

Also, the Gallup data you are using if from the first 6 months of 2011.  During the first half of 2011 Obama had an average approval (simple average of published Gallup daily results) of 47.22% and a disapproval of 44.54%.

By contrast, a simple average of the last 30 days of Gallups daily tracking poll shows an average approval of 42.1% and and average disapproval of 49.73% - In short Obama has gone from about +3 to about -7 relative to the Jan-Jun 2011 data set you are using. (actually +2.68 to - 7.68 for a net shift of -10.36%, I've rounded to 10% because I don't even pretend what I am doing is accurate enough to have .36% matter)

If we adjust the state by state Gallup Data by simply deducting 5% from Obama's approval and adding 5% to his disapproval, we get a very different picture.

Again, let me concede that simply deduct/adding 5% is far from perfect, but as a very broad stroke general rough and dirty tool, it is likely roughly in the ballpark.  In practice, the shift is likely a little greater in "Battleground" states, and a little smaller is states that are safe for either side.



After adjusting for the shift in Gallup's measurement of Obama's approval between the Jan-June data set and the average of the last 30 days, we find that Obama continues to have a net positive approval in 11 states + DC, representing 163 EVS.

District of Columbia
Connecticut
Maryland
Delaware
Hawaii
New York
Massachusetts
Vermont
California
Illinois
New Jersey
Rhode Island

I think Just about everybody would consider these to be "safe" Obama states.

If we (utterly arbitrarily) say any state where Obama has a net approval of Even to -10 to be a "Battleground" state, we get 10 states totaling 128 EVs.  In terms of "Battleground states" these are, well, "The usual suspects" we all know and love....

Minnesota
Washington
Wisconsin
Maine
Michigan
Iowa
Georgia
Pennsylvania
Florida
North Carolina

Not sure about Georgia, but the rest of the list looks pretty sane as a 2012 battleground....

Finally, if we take the states where Obama is -11 net approval or worse, we have 29 states totaling 237 EVs were, based upon net approval, the GOP likely has a leg up.  A couple of these (Nevada and New Mexico pop out) might not quite fit here ("Battleground" might be a better place) but looking over this list, most of these states look likely GOP.

New Mexico
Virginia
Mississippi
Ohio
South Dakota
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Nevada
Oregon
South Carolina
Indiana
Louisiana
Missouri
Texas
New Hampshire
Alaska
Tennessee
Nebraska
Kansas
North Dakota
Alabama
Kentucky
Montana
West Virginia
Oklahoma
Utah
Wyoming
Idaho

I fully concede this is very rough and dirty, but is should generally capture the impact of the +/- 10% net shift Gallup has tracked since the January-June 2011 data set was collected.

I see the recent low point of approval for President Obama reflecting the nastiness of the budget debate. Almost nobody is ever happy with the results of any budget debate on every detail. This applies to state governors as well.   Take a look at what happened to the approval ratings of Tom Corbett and Chris Christie (both Republicans) just a few weeks after vicious legislative sessions on state budgets. During the debate, both sides demonize each other, especially when public opinion is as polarized as it is. But once it is over, things go back more or less to normal. Heck, even Scott Walker has gone from 'execrable' ratings for his approval to simply 'bad'.

To say that the budgeting is the most important peacetime legislation in Congress and the most important part of the political  scene in State governments may be no exaggeration. This is when the values of the legislative branch as elected define themselves as at almost no other time. Budgetary debates are not where one makes friends and impresses the electorate.

If there is any conclusion that I can draw it is that the Debt Ceiling squabble hurt the approval ratings of both Democrats and Republicans equally. If it were good for republicans and bad for Democrats, then we would  see prospective Republican nominees for President catching up with President Obama. Such has yet to happen. Mitt Romney, now a political outsider who put his moistened finger into the air during the Debt Ceiling debate, felt which part of his finger was coolest and decided to avoid weighing into the debate while it was going on and then made cheap shots at the President like all other Republicans, gained nothing.

President Obama is still ahead of every prospective Republican nominee in Ohio, Colorado, and North Carolina after the debate.  He has since gone on tour in the Midwest to do what he is especially good at -- making fresh promises of achievements that he might have gotten if the Democrats still held the House.

You have a valid case for this debate being the start of the downfall of President Obama with someone like Rick Perry defeating him in November 2012 with the Republicans picking up a raft of Senate seats and a few House seats... if there is no political rebound for the President but there is for all Republicans. Yes, the Republicans will rebound some -- but more than the President?  

Little Congressional activity will go on for a few weeks. Politicians will be going out on junkets,  returning to their districts, or going on well-deserved vacations. Maybe some not-so-well deserved, but that is a matter of judgment. All in all, most people are likely to forget the acrimony of the deficit debate except to the extent that some politicians made fools of themselves. Those who made fools of themselves will usually be the last to get the message.

The President is far more popular than Congress and almost certainly will be again in October.   Except for the Deficit Ceiling debate, conditions two months from now will likely be much like they were in June. That includes approval ratings. Gaps of approval that were 48-45 in June and are now  45-42 now could easily be 48-45 again in October.  

Until I see otherwise I expect to see the President rebound, but I can't predict how quickly he will.  

[pbrower2a]

Obama down to 32% approval!!!

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/847/Default.aspx

Interactive polls are a waste of the electrons used in transmitting both raw data and the conclusions. 

[pbrower2a]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45, +1.

Disapprove 53%, -1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 21%, +2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 41%, -1.

I think a slightly anti-Obama sample dropped out.

The anger over the Debt Ceiling travesty may be abating, perhaps to the benefit of most politicians.

[pbrower2a]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45, +1.

Disapprove 53%, -1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 21%, +2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 41%, -1.

I think a slightly anti-Obama sample dropped out.

The anger over the Debt Ceiling travesty may be abating, perhaps to the benefit of most politicians.

More likely, just a bad sample, as I noted yesterday.

In a few weeks, much of the anger over the Deficit Ceiling fiasco will have abated. Question: who comes out of it less scathed? Who recovers and who doesn't? If the polls from the time of the fiasco (and it is that) show up in October, they may look funny. "So how is it that President Obama can have an approval rating around 45% and lead every Republican in in Wisconsin or Ohio when he now gets a 46% approval rating in Georgia and is apparently tied with Romney?"... We may see much of that for a while. PPP would surely like to poll a state that it rarely polls -- let us say Kentucky or Maine -- one of these weeks.

...I am not using the F&M poll -- paradoxically it would look better for President Obama in a state that frequently gets polled because there he leads "Generic Republican" and, I would have to assume, every imaginable Republican nominee.   

[pbrower2a]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45, u.

Disapprove 53%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 21%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, +1.

It is possible that a small pro Obama sample is moving through the numbers, but I think it is more likely that a small anti Obama sample was moving through and dropped out yesterday.

I'll predict that his approvals will be back in the high forties after he releases his jobs program, and it'll probably rise a bit more around the 10th Anniversary of 9/11.

I'd doubt that there will be any improvement due to the Anniversary.

If his program is a "jobs program," as opposed to an economic program, his numbers could drop.  I think this might be the last chance for him to improve his numbers prior to the campaign (absent an outside factor).

9/11 is not for President Obama to exploit except to drop hints that Osama bin Laden is not celebrating the anniversary somewhere in This World.

Any "jobs program" other than one in which the jobs have no pay attached or rely entirely upon new and bigger tax cuts for the super-rich will face stiff Republican resistance. That might be good for 2012, but in the meantime...

[pbrower2a]

Gallup at 38%. New low.

Pro-Gaddafi sample working its way through the system.

Snicker, snicker!