MI-PPP: Obama has weak approvals, but leads everyone

[Tender Branson]

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

Approve .......................................................... 47%
Disapprove...................................................... 45%

If the candidates for President next year were Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?

Barack Obama................................................ 48%
Mitt Romney.................................................... 41%

If the candidates for President next year were Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee, who would you vote for?

Barack Obama................................................ 50%
Mike Huckabee ............................................... 41%

If the candidates for President next year were Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Newt Gingrich, who would you vote for?

Barack Obama................................................ 53%
Newt Gingrich ................................................. 37%

If the candidates for President next year were Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Sarah Palin, who would you vote for?

Barack Obama................................................ 55%
Sarah Palin ..................................................... 35%

If the candidates for President next year were Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Scott Walker, who would you vote for?

Barack Obama................................................ 52%
Scott Walker ................................................... 32%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MI_0324925.pdf

The new map:

Obama vs. Huckabee

Obama vs. Romney

Obama vs. Gingrich

Obama vs. Palin

[pbrower2a]

Interesting inclusion of Scott Walker (R-WI) in case Republicans should see him as a hero (they do!) and manage to nominate him. He's almost as unpopular as Sarah Palin in Michigan, which is quite a feat these days. Governor Snyder (R-MI) may be less blatant a union-buster than Scott Walker, but even his 'moderate' approach may be going too far.

I don't know what the problem is with President Obama in Michigan. Nervous about Libya? Gasoline prices? The economy has been in bad shape for only about 40 years.

It is possible to win a state while having an approval rating less than 50% in a largely two-way race, as the President would do in Michigan against any conceivable GOP nominee.

 

[DS0816]

There is a pattern in Michigan where two-term presidents, since Franklin Roosevelt, have come up with better margins when winning a second term than with the first.

I will not be factoring in the three-way 1912 race (in which Mich. was lost by Republican incumbent William Howard Taft not to Democratic challenger and winner Woodrow Wilson but Progressive Party nominee Teddy Roosevelt). Of the below two-termers, 1956 Dwight Eisenhower was near-status quo, in his re-election, with carriage of Mich. (which voted for all prevailing GOPs from the party's first victor, 1860 Abraham Lincoln, up to Ike's re-election).


From FDR to W.…
• 1932: Franklin Roosevelt (D): 7.92%; 1936: Roosevelt (D): 17.57%
• 1952: Dwight Eisenhower (R): 11.47%; 1956: Eisenhower (R): 11.48%
• 1968: Richard Nixon (R): –6.72% (first winning Republican not to carry Mich.); 1972: Nixon (R): 14.39%
• 1980: Ronald Reagan (R): 6.49%; 1984: Reagan (R): 18.99%
• 1992: Bill Clinton (D): 7.39%; 1996: Clinton (D): 13.21%
• 2000: George W. Bush (R): –5.14% (first two-term Republican who never once carried Mich.); 2004: Bush (R): –3.42%

In Election 2008 (with 2012 pending)…
• 2008: Barack Obama (D): 16.44%

[pbrower2a]

There is a pattern in Michigan where two-term presidents, since Franklin Roosevelt, have come up with better margins when winning a second term than with the first.

I will not be factoring in the three-way 1912 race (in which Mich. was lost by Republican incumbent William Howard Taft not to Democratic challenger and winner Woodrow Wilson but Progressive Party nominee Teddy Roosevelt). Of the below two-termers, 1956 Dwight Eisenhower was near-status quo, in his re-election, with carriage of Mich. (which voted for all prevailing GOPs from the party's first victor, 1860 Abraham Lincoln, up to Ike's re-election).


From FDR to W.…
• 1932: Franklin Roosevelt (D): 7.92%; 1936: Roosevelt (D): 17.57%
• 1952: Dwight Eisenhower (R): 11.47%; 1956: Eisenhower (R): 11.48%
• 1968: Richard Nixon (R): –6.72% (first winning Republican not to carry Mich.); 1972: Nixon (R): 14.39%
• 1980: Ronald Reagan (R): 6.49%; 1984: Reagan (R): 18.99%
• 1992: Bill Clinton (D): 7.39%; 1996: Clinton (D): 13.21%
• 2000: George W. Bush (R): –5.14% (first two-term Republican who never once carried Mich.); 2004: Bush (R): –3.42%

In Election 2008 (with 2012 pending)…
• 2008: Barack Obama (D): 16.44%

I just can't see President Obama winning Michigan by a larger margin than 16.44% while getting less than about 57% of the nationwide vote. He gets that if Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, or Scott Walker is the GOP nominee, but he could also win 60% of the nationwide popular vote and 450+ electoral votes against either one of them. Donald Trump might fit into that category as a political gadfly. Gingrich? Maybe.

I think that Barack Obama maxed out in Michigan in any nationwide contest that goes  under a 55-45 split of the nationwide popular vote.  

 

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

And Michigan will probably be a state which Obama wins by 7-10 points if Mitt Romney is the nominee.

[DS0816]

I just can't see President Obama winning Michigan by a larger margin than 16.44% while getting less than about 57% of the nationwide vote.

2008 Barack Obama won Michigan with 57.33%, 4.41% above his national 52.92%. Getting re-elected, he'd be improving on his popular vote, the margin, electoral vote. Not hard to see him expanding that in Michigan. Even if Republicans nominate Mitt Romney (who didn't govern Michigan; his father did, in the 1960s, when the Republicans were more liberal).

[DS0816]

And Michigan will probably be a state which Obama wins by 7-10 points if Mitt Romney is the nominee.

Lose between 6.44% and 9.44% of the margin in 2012 Michigan? No.

[Niemeyerite]

And Michigan will probably be a state which Obama wins by 7-10 points if Mitt Romney is the nominee.

Lose between 6.44% and 9.44% of the margin in 2012 Michigan? No.

I think the margin will be more or less of 10%. he only carried it by 16 points there last year because mccain realized he couldn't carry the state and left campaigning there.

[DS0816]

And Michigan will probably be a state which Obama wins by 7-10 points if Mitt Romney is the nominee.

Lose between 6.44% and 9.44% of the margin in 2012 Michigan? No.

I think the margin will be more or less of 10%. he only carried it by 16 points there last year because mccain realized he couldn't carry the state and left campaigning there.

Obama had similar level margins in Maine, Oregon, and Washington. Your theory doesn't wash.

[Niemeyerite]

And Michigan will probably be a state which Obama wins by 7-10 points if Mitt Romney is the nominee.

Lose between 6.44% and 9.44% of the margin in 2012 Michigan? No.

I think the margin will be more or less of 10%. he only carried it by 16 points there last year because mccain realized he couldn't carry the state and left campaigning there.

Obama had similar level margins in Maine, Oregon, and Washington. Your theory doesn't wash.

but those states weren't considered battleground states.

[DS0816]

but those states weren't considered battleground states.

No. The 2008 battlegrounds were states won in 2004 by Republican incumbent George W. Bush. McCain let it be known they figured they could play in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Early on, they looked at Minnesota and Wisconsin. Margins were 5 points each for John Kerry. Thing is, you have to compare the margin with the national performance. Pa. was roughly 5 points more Democratic than on average to the rest of the country; Mich. was 6 points more Democratic than on average to the rest of the country. Had 2008 been Republican hold of the White House … understandable that you write they were "considered battlegrounds." Not in 2008. Battlegrounds in 2008 were Colorado, Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia. Then declining bellwether Missouri. And well-established bellwethers Florida, Ohio, Nevada, and New Mexico. And everyone knew Iowa was lost.

[King]

Sorry, bud, but when pbrower calls your prediction too Dem favorable then it's time to change positions.

[Gustaf]

There is a pattern in Michigan where two-term presidents, since Franklin Roosevelt, have come up with better margins when winning a second term than with the first.

I will not be factoring in the three-way 1912 race (in which Mich. was lost by Republican incumbent William Howard Taft not to Democratic challenger and winner Woodrow Wilson but Progressive Party nominee Teddy Roosevelt). Of the below two-termers, 1956 Dwight Eisenhower was near-status quo, in his re-election, with carriage of Mich. (which voted for all prevailing GOPs from the party's first victor, 1860 Abraham Lincoln, up to Ike's re-election).


From FDR to W.…
• 1932: Franklin Roosevelt (D): 7.92%; 1936: Roosevelt (D): 17.57%
• 1952: Dwight Eisenhower (R): 11.47%; 1956: Eisenhower (R): 11.48%
• 1968: Richard Nixon (R): –6.72% (first winning Republican not to carry Mich.); 1972: Nixon (R): 14.39%
• 1980: Ronald Reagan (R): 6.49%; 1984: Reagan (R): 18.99%
• 1992: Bill Clinton (D): 7.39%; 1996: Clinton (D): 13.21%
• 2000: George W. Bush (R): –5.14% (first two-term Republican who never once carried Mich.); 2004: Bush (R): –3.42%

In Election 2008 (with 2012 pending)…
• 2008: Barack Obama (D): 16.44%

There is a pattern in The United States where two-term presidents, since Franklin Roosevelt, have come up with better margins when winning a second term than with the first.

I will not be factoring in the three-way 1912 race (in which the popular vote was lost by Republican incumbent William Howard Taft not only to Democratic challenger and winner Woodrow Wilson but also to Progressive Party nominee Teddy Roosevelt). Of the below two-termers, 1956 Dwight Eisenhower was near-status quo, in his re-election, with carriage of the United States. (which voted for all prevailing GOPs from the party's first victor, 1860 Abraham Lincoln, up to Ike's re-election).

[pbrower2a]

There is a pattern in Michigan where two-term presidents, since Franklin Roosevelt, have come up with better margins when winning a second term than with the first.

I will not be factoring in the three-way 1912 race (in which Mich. was lost by Republican incumbent William Howard Taft not to Democratic challenger and winner Woodrow Wilson but Progressive Party nominee Teddy Roosevelt). Of the below two-termers, 1956 Dwight Eisenhower was near-status quo, in his re-election, with carriage of Mich. (which voted for all prevailing GOPs from the party's first victor, 1860 Abraham Lincoln, up to Ike's re-election).


From FDR to W.…
• 1932: Franklin Roosevelt (D): 7.92%; 1936: Roosevelt (D): 17.57%
• 1952: Dwight Eisenhower (R): 11.47%; 1956: Eisenhower (R): 11.48%
• 1968: Richard Nixon (R): –6.72% (first winning Republican not to carry Mich.); 1972: Nixon (R): 14.39%
• 1980: Ronald Reagan (R): 6.49%; 1984: Reagan (R): 18.99%
• 1992: Bill Clinton (D): 7.39%; 1996: Clinton (D): 13.21%
• 2000: George W. Bush (R): –5.14% (first two-term Republican who never once carried Mich.); 2004: Bush (R): –3.42%

In Election 2008 (with 2012 pending)…
• 2008: Barack Obama (D): 16.44%

There is a pattern in The United States where two-term presidents, since Franklin Roosevelt, have come up with better margins when winning a second term than with the first.

I will not be factoring in the three-way 1912 race (in which the popular vote was lost by Republican incumbent William Howard Taft not only to Democratic challenger and winner Woodrow Wilson but also to Progressive Party nominee Teddy Roosevelt). Of the below two-termers, 1956 Dwight Eisenhower was near-status quo, in his re-election, with carriage of the United States. (which voted for all prevailing GOPs from the party's first victor, 1860 Abraham Lincoln, up to Ike's re-election).

This time it may depend on who the republican nominee is and events leading to the 2012 election. So far the events haven't gone too badly, the President has much legislative activity that has gone his way, the GOP has been inspiring unrest against some of its leaders, and the GOP candidates don't look so strong.  If such continues (legislative achievements through the  adjournment of the Lame Duck session are enough, and the GOP will get the blame for a lack of any legislative attempts other than to pay off special interest groups that bought some elections), then such will simply be folded into the pattern.

[Associate Justice PiT]

There is a pattern in Michigan where two-term presidents, since Franklin Roosevelt, have come up with better margins when winning a second term than with the first.

I will not be factoring in the three-way 1912 race (in which Mich. was lost by Republican incumbent William Howard Taft not to Democratic challenger and winner Woodrow Wilson but Progressive Party nominee Teddy Roosevelt). Of the below two-termers, 1956 Dwight Eisenhower was near-status quo, in his re-election, with carriage of Mich. (which voted for all prevailing GOPs from the party's first victor, 1860 Abraham Lincoln, up to Ike's re-election).


From FDR to W.…
• 1932: Franklin Roosevelt (D): 7.92%; 1936: Roosevelt (D): 17.57%
• 1952: Dwight Eisenhower (R): 11.47%; 1956: Eisenhower (R): 11.48%
• 1968: Richard Nixon (R): –6.72% (first winning Republican not to carry Mich.); 1972: Nixon (R): 14.39%
• 1980: Ronald Reagan (R): 6.49%; 1984: Reagan (R): 18.99%
• 1992: Bill Clinton (D): 7.39%; 1996: Clinton (D): 13.21%
• 2000: George W. Bush (R): –5.14% (first two-term Republican who never once carried Mich.); 2004: Bush (R): –3.42%

In Election 2008 (with 2012 pending)…
• 2008: Barack Obama (D): 16.44%

There is a pattern in The United States where two-term presidents, since Franklin Roosevelt, have come up with better margins when winning a second term than with the first.

I will not be factoring in the three-way 1912 race (in which the popular vote was lost by Republican incumbent William Howard Taft not only to Democratic challenger and winner Woodrow Wilson but also to Progressive Party nominee Teddy Roosevelt). Of the below two-termers, 1956 Dwight Eisenhower was near-status quo, in his re-election, with carriage of the United States. (which voted for all prevailing GOPs from the party's first victor, 1860 Abraham Lincoln, up to Ike's re-election).

     To put numbers & correct colors to it, each candidate's performance in Michigan versus their performance nationally:

From FDR to W.…
• 1932: Franklin Roosevelt (D): -9.84%; 1936: Roosevelt (D): -6.69%
• 1952: Dwight Eisenhower (R): 0.62%; 1956: Eisenhower (R): -3.92%
• 1968: Richard Nixon (R): –-7.42%; 1972: Nixon (R): -8.76%
• 1980: Ronald Reagan (R): -3.25%; 1984: Reagan (R): 0.78%
• 1992: Bill Clinton (D): 1.83%; 1996: Clinton (D): 4.70%
• 2000: George W. Bush (R): –-4.63%; 2004: Bush (R): –-5.88%

In Election 2008 (with 2012 pending)…
• 2008: Barack Obama (D): 9.17%

     Therefore, by the logic of DS, Michigan has a 50/50 chance of trending Democratic in 2012. Either that or just claim that if a two-term President runs against or on a ticket with someone that is left-handed, then Michigan will trend towards them. It probably works based on that sample, & would be roughly as logical as the notion that Eisenhower doing 0.01% better in Michigan his second time around somehow supports the notion that Michigan swings towards incumbents.