FL-Sunshine State News/Susquehanna (R): Romney leads Obama by 4

[pbrower2a]

This is from that "junk" poll.

Obama Approval Rating in Tennessee:

44% Approve
50% Disapprove

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110619/NEWS/306190050/Obama-holds-lead-over-GOP-hopefuls-Tennessee

Sure, John McCain won the state 57-42.  Is a 44% approval rating that far off in a state in which the current President won only 41.79% of the vote? It is either within the margin of error or it suggests some movement in favor of the President.

I have no doubt that Mike Huckabee would win this state if he were the Republican nominee. Huckabee is an excellent match for neighboring Arkansas, a state that generally votes with Tennessee and has similar demographics.

John McCain was a very good  match for Tennessee in 2008. His political pedigree is very Southern, and he is a military hero. Such matters greatly in deciding who can win what states. But are current Republican nominees as good matches for Tennessee? Could President Obama be gaining some in places that he lost badly (not that that will be enough to win a state like Tennessee)?

The President has a slightly-higher approval rating, last shown, in Georgia.

As I have said as succinctly as possible,

"Incumbents either run on their records and win or run from their records and lose".

Could it be that President Obama has addressed some of the misgivings that many Southern white voters had of him? In 2008 that mattered greatly in Tennessee. In 2012 that might not matter so much.  But if the President is doing badly in Tennessee at this point, then shouldn't some Republican be running away with the state? Sure it is a surprise, but so is the recent 44% approval for the President in Pennsylvania.

The Sunshine State News poll has  suspect characteristics, most notably editorial bias that drips. The next day (today as I write this) it showed a 27% approve/58% disapprove split for Governor Rick Scott and sugarcoated it as 'not that bad'. But President Obama, with an approval rating in the thirties, is "doomed".     

What happened to the +6 rule?

The +6 rule for an incumbent suggests that President Obama (if the rule holds for a Presidential incumbent in a State as it does for Governors and Senators) would be very close to winning the state.  Of course the poll must be from before the campaign season begins (still true) and that the poll must not be obsolete (suspect).

There have been earlier polls that suggested much the same for the President in Tennessee, so this is no fluke. 

I have muted it at both ends -- that anything below 40% isn't a temptation because the potential gains for campaigning in the state are small (although if the President is winning re-election he might make appearances on behalf of Congressional and Senate candidates), and that anything above 55% makes further efforts pointless (same qualification). The President will not win more than 62% of a nationwide vote, as such has never happened.  I have cut off the line at 40% and muted the effect for states in which the approval ratings are above 45% until there is no effect at an approval rating above 54%. The incumbent President has some choice of what states to campaign in and his re-election organization has choice of where to expend campaign funds.   

[Gustaf]

Yeah...but an approval rate of 44% would give him 50% according to your rule. That's way off from 42%.

You can't both validate polls based on approval ratings being close to vote shares and simultaneously claim that approval ratings are linked to much higher vote shares.

[pbrower2a]

Yeah...but an approval rate of 44% would give him 50% according to your rule. That's way off from 42%.

You can't both validate polls based on approval ratings being close to vote shares and simultaneously claim that approval ratings are linked to much higher vote shares.

The Sunshine State News poll just seems off the wall. Nationwide polls have yet to show the President with an approval rating consistent with such a low approval rating in Florida.

[Penelope]

Pbrower's biased, get over it. A lot of his analyses, though, tend to be correct.

[pbrower2a]

We are all biased. Current events are open to interpretation. Attempts to make history fit a view of the world are disasters. The historical record is beyond alteration. Maybe one can refine measurements of historical fact, most likely as statistics, but such is for specialized experts and not for the layman. Sure, it is possible to have historical simulations in which the German Army thwarts the D-Day invasion or in which Napoleon chooses to leave Russia alone; such might be interesting -- but unreal.   

The future is literally yet to be decided.   The best that anyone can do is to see parallels in history. Some want to see President Obama as the new Jimmy Carter (a very poor match); some want to see him as the new FDR (superficial so far).

[Gustaf]

Pbrower's biased, get over it. A lot of his analyses, though, tend to be correct.

Ha, what? I'm afraid that is not true. Have you ever actually read his analyses? It's so bad it's comical.