Biden approval ratings thread, 1.0

[wbrocks67]

Should be noted that that particular YouGov poll was an outlier - this week its back to 48/47 (+1) which is where it's been for months now, give or take a few points.

Also YouGov is notorious for polling Independents that are basically Republicans. Dems scores with Indies are always terrible for some reason in their polls.

[pbrower2a]

Some theory on why Presidents make their choices. Going back to Harry Truman for successful Presidents:

1948: Alben Barkley. I'm guessing that Barkley was good for ideological consistency, as the states have much in common despite having only a small border. To this day there is no direct bridge crossing from Missouri to Kentucky. Truman was able to win the states of the Mountain South, and he needed them.

1952: Richard Nixon. Nixon was an avid Commie-hunter -- far more effective than Joseph R. McCarthy. Ike had been the typical military contact between the US and the USSR during WWII, and if he was going to put an end to the Korean War without selling out the fledgling South Korea he was going to need those contacts. Nixon was good cover. As a Senator, Nixon could do wome of his own politics on behalf of someone never elected to any political office.

1960: Lyndon Johnson. LBJ was probably more useful to the Democratic Party in the Senate than as VP... until you-know-what happened.  Oddly, JFK and LBJ were from states that Ike won... twice... and in landslides. Geographic balance, I suppose, mattered greatly, and Texas was critical.

1968: Spiro Agnew. Yes, we know that Agnew would eventually implode for corruption, but not until he and Nixon would be re-elected. Agnew served as a sort of pit-bull type. Maryland was supposedly on the margin, but Nixon/Agnew lost that state.

I think that even without the corruption, we are best off if we never have someone like Agnew as a VP nominee again. It is best that candidacies be positive, at least toward fellow Americans.  

1976: Walter Mondale. Mondale was squeaky-clean, and he could appeal to organized labor in the northern US. Such may have been critical to two of Carter's barest wins in Ohio and Wisconsin. Michigan was not going to go to Carter (Favorite Son). Note that Carter still fell short in a raft of states that have not gone R except in Democratic losses since 1976: Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, New Mexico, Michigan, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.  In 1992 some Democrat similar in ideology (I will get to that) won those states.

1980: George Herbert Walker Bush, and I assume on his skills as a political administrator if not as an elected pol. Reagan was going to win against a President whose bad luck dogged him, including the stagflation with no obvious, painless solution. (The solution to stagflation was getting people to work harder and longer for much less, creating more stuff and selling it while being unable to buy it themselves. No Democrat would offer that, but Reagan did and forced it upon youth who might have had college degrees but had to work in fast-food places or shopping malls, doing real work that would not support them unless they did two or more such jobs).

1988: Dan Quayle. Probably for geographic balance more than anything else. Quayle's Indiana was anything but critical, having gone D only once since 1936. Maybe the elder Bush thought that he might groom a young politician for the Presidency. 1988 wasn't close, as Dukakis collapsed as a nominee, and it is hard to understand what role Quayle had in that.

1992: Al Gore. If you are from the neighboring state as the Presidential nominee, then you are probably being selected for ideological consistency and for having a complimentary office to that of the Presidential nominee.

2000: Dick Cheney. Formerly a Congressman from a sure R state with three electoral votes, he wasn't going to win any key state for such. Dubya may have been suspect as an administrator, and Cheney was more an administrator than a politician. This could have gone badly in the closest Presidential election ever. More on that below.

2008: Joe Biden. Reputedly Barack Obama chose a fellow Senator from a sure D state with three electoral votes because Biden was the poorest member of the US Senate, which implied that he could not be linked to anything corrupt. I'm figuring on ideological consistency, a freedom from great controversy, and political savvy. Obama ended up winning by a comfortable margin in the popular and electoral vote.

2016: Mike Pence. On the surface, Mike Pence seemed likely to lose a re-election bid as Governor of Indiana. He's not a great speaker, and Indiana is a small state that almost never goes D in Presidential elections. Here's the point: Donald Trump needed the votes of fundamentalist Protestant voters because Trump is about as amoral a politician who won a Presidential nomination by one of the two main Parties... as America has ever known. So Trump chooses a self-righteous, certifiable reactionary to consolidate the fundamentalist-Protestant vote. It may be hypocritical but brilliant. Trump is not a brilliant man, but sometimes a mediocrity has what might look like a stroke of genius.

2020: Kamala Harris. I see no critical consistency that she brought over to Joe Biden. Sure, California had 55 electoral votes, but it hadn't gone R since 1992 and wasn't going to in 2020. Ideological consistency and a keen legal mind honed in prosecutions? That might be good for reinforcing prosecutions of some corrupt figures from the Trump era. Joe Biden likes to be seen as a nice guy, but he knows hat it takes. Hatchet woman: do the crime and do the time.

Now for failures, not counting incumbents.

1952: John Sparkman. Well, his Alabama was 11 of the 89 electoral votes that he and Adlai Stevenson won. Stevenson did win back the states that went from Truman to Thurmond, but little else.

1956: Estes Kefauver. Good man, but he could not even win his own state of Tennessee. Ike would have won this election if he had picked up a factory worker with no political experience and a clean personal record as a Veep candidate.

1960: Henry Cabot Lodge. Talk about geographic balance (California and Massachusetts)... the home state advantage is far bigger for the Presidential nominee than for the Veep nominee. Ouch.  For that I see Lodge, whatever his virtues, as a political blunder. Close as that election is, any blunder could have made the difference. Usually I have ascribed the advantage for Kennedy of being a war hero (a big thing back then) and being much more telegenic than Nixon. Nixon was physically ugly, and that also had to hurt him.

1964: William Miller. A moderate supposedly chosen to create ideological balance, but not relevant with a nominee that made just too many gaffes. I doubt that it would have mattered whom Goldwater chose as a Veep running-mate. He selected a Representative, which is typically a bad idea (it worked with Cheney and might have worked with Kemp, but certainly not with Ryan).

1968: Did Humphrey-Muskie really have a chance when Wallace took his racist splinter faction from the Democratic Party? Nixon got 301 electoral votes and Humphrey got 191... but it is not so difficult to see why Humphrey lost. I'm guessing that Humphrey chose Muskie to consolidate the Catholic vote and otherwise for ideological consistency. Chaos at the 1968 Democratic National Convention had bad optics. but the Wallace secession destroyed whatever chance Humphrey had. Muskie did deliver four electoral votes from Maine...

1972: Unless one was sure that the Watergate scandal was the ruin of Nixon, Nixon had no chance to be defeated. I don't have to go into the theater of having to replace Thomas Eagleton with Sargent Shriver. Enough said.

1976: This was close. Bob Dole   had a strong reputation and was a savvy pol. The Veep was not the difference here.

1984: Geraldine Ferraro, a Congressional Representative was a long-shot choice as the first female nominee for Vice-President.

1988: Bush ties to Texas mattered more than Bentsen ties. Bentsen was one of the strongest Senators ever, but that was not enough.

1996: Kemp was about as good as one could be as a Congressman. He was not going to be elected to the US Senate in New York. But he was running with Dole against a slick pair of politicians.

2000: Al Gore wanted to solidify the Jewish vote in Florida. Joe Lieberman was the wrong Jewish fellow. Sure, I am a Michigander and I have even met Carl Levin... he might have helped pick off New Hampshire or Ohio. Targeting Florida? Not when the Governor is the brother of the Presidential nominee.

2004: John Edwards. This came close. Edwards did not win his home state. This was a dicey election.

2008: Joe Biden. Ideological consistency and no potential for conflicts of interest? Such is worth choosing someone from a sure state for one's Party that has only three electoral votes.

2012: Paul Ryan. Yes, I know, some things looked good -- potential swing state, and the Catholic vote can decide an election. Unfortunately he is a Congressional Representative, and when the election started getting away he ramped up his effort to keep his House seat. OK, it is tough to win against an incumbent who is doing most things right and nothing badly, and is one of the savviest pols ever known.

2016: Tim Kaine. Not really a mistake, so far as I can tell.        

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Edwards, Mondale, KERRY, Obama, Biden, Mayor Daley and Rahm Emanuel were connected to David Axelrod Law Firm

That's why Obama was considering Edwards before sex scandal became full blown in 2008.

Gephardt would have won VA or CO in 2004 because 911 and the Bin Laden tape ruined Kerry Edwards chances of becoming Prez

OH was lost due to SSM, but CO and VA didn't have SSM or Kerry could of won IA, NV and NM that would have gotten Kerry to 270

This is why Kerry is in Biden Cabinet and was in Obamas cabinet

That's why Bayh wasn't picked as Obama's Veep

Hillary could of picked Tom Perez he could have debated Pence much better than Kaine

But, Harris is far superior than Cheney or Pence, Katrina and 2006 wouldn't have been bad if Colin Powell was the Veep or Condi Rice instead of Cheney, since they would have went and saved Blacks in New Orleans

[GeorgiaModerate]

Ipsos Core Political Data (weekly), May 11-12, 1005 adults

Approve 56 (+1)
Disapprove 38 (nc)

Approve by party (disapproval not shown):

D: 91 (+2)
I: 55 (+6)
R: 18 (-4)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

A wave can happen, Minorities are often underpolled, AZ has Kelly ahead by 10, Rs thought he was vulnerable

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

https://twitter.com/YouGovAmerica/status/1392568612779700224

Kamala Harris for President in 2024 or 2028 is not going to end well. She is loathed in the Rust Belt just as much as Hillary was.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

https://twitter.com/YouGovAmerica/status/1392568612779700224

Kamala Harris for President in 2024 or 2028 is not going to end well. She is loathed in the Rust Belt just as much as Hillary was.

What?  Hillary was loathed in Rust belt because WC females didn't like the Adultery that Bill Clinton did with her as well as BENGHAZI

She will pick Beshear and he will help her in Rust belt

Kaine was picked and D's already had VA locked down

You can't compare Harris to Hillary

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Harris is up 12 on DeSantis, that proves this poll is bogus

[MT Treasurer]

I'm surprised you guys still trust polls so much after how badly they were off in Nov 2020

Surprised to see someone from Georgia saying that.

A January runoff election with unrepresentative turnout patterns in a deeply polarized (and thus easier-to-model) state that is not only zooming to the left but also a place where Democrats benefit from unusually D-friendly migration patterns and 'low-propensity' D voter participation/activation does not negate the consistent patterns observed on a national level in every November election since 2014. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that many of these polls are quite clearly inflating Biden's approval numbers.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I'm surprised you guys still trust polls so much after how badly they were off in Nov 2020

Surprised to see someone from Georgia saying that.

A January runoff election with unrepresentative turnout patterns in a deeply polarized (and thus easier-to-model) state that is not only zooming to the left but also a place where Democrats benefit from unusually D-friendly migration patterns and 'low-propensity' D voter participation/activation does not negate the consistent patterns observed on a national level in every November election since 2014. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that many of these polls are quite clearly inflating Biden's approval numbers.

Our House races are in 50 states not 279 states a wave doesn't happen a yr before Election day

Remember that D's weren't on track to win 33 seats in 2017, they were only on track to win 10/15 the same in 2009 Boehner was on track to win a handful of seats.

Biden isn't a 46 percent Prez that we saw in a Trump Midterm

But Dems need to expand the battleground beyond WI, PA, NH and GA


To have a shot, and split voting can happen in 2018 DeWine and Brown won in 202o Koop and Tillis won


Beasley, Jackson and Ryan have been raising them Ms of money on Act blue

OH Senate was well within margin of error and D's have a shot in NC and IA,  Summer of 2033 is when we should look for a blue wave, Generic ballot is D 5

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

https://twitter.com/YouGovAmerica/status/1392568612779700224

Kamala Harris for President in 2024 or 2028 is not going to end well. She is loathed in the Rust Belt just as much as Hillary was.

The poll is an outlier, and I don't think we have any data that backs up that particular assertion.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I'm surprised you guys still trust polls so much after how badly they were off in Nov 2020

Surprised to see someone from Georgia saying that.

A January runoff election with unrepresentative turnout patterns in a deeply polarized (and thus easier-to-model) state that is not only zooming to the left but also a place where Democrats benefit from unusually D-friendly migration patterns and 'low-propensity' D voter participation/activation does not negate the consistent patterns observed on a national level in every November election since 2014. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that many of these polls are quite clearly inflating Biden's approval numbers.

Since we're talking about Biden, I wasn't referring to the Senate runoffs.  The presidential election polls in Georgia were spot on, both the averages and a number of individual polls.  Here's an interesting example -- note the date!

https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/1260545350303088645

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump is still a 46 percent Prez

[GeorgiaModerate]

Redfield & Wilton, May 8-9, 1500 RV (change from late March)

Approve 52 (-1)
Disapprove 36 (+1)

Strongly approve 27 (-1)
Strongly disapprove 25 (-1)

Other approval ratings (no priors):

Kamala Harris: 49/36 (strongly 25/28)
Mitch McConnell: 25/42 (strongly 9/26)
Nancy Pelosi: 38/41 (strongly 18/33)
Chuck Schumer: 30/34 (strongly 14/23)
Kevin McCarthy: 26/31 (strongly 10/21)

Generic Congressional ballot: D 44, R 37

[OneJ]

https://twitter.com/nick_field90/status/1392950872548777990?s=20

[GP270watch]

https://twitter.com/nick_field90/status/1392950872548777990?s=20

Those are some strong numbers.

[Lief 🗽]

https://twitter.com/nick_field90/status/1392950872548777990?s=20

Subtract about ten points from each of these because it’s Data For Progress... and it’s not looking good. Yikes.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

https://twitter.com/nick_field90/status/1392950872548777990?s=20

Subtract about ten points from each of these because it’s Data For Progress... and it’s not looking good. Yikes.

Lol.

[Lief 🗽]

These jokers said Biden would win PA by 7. Why should I believe anything they say?

[Holmes]

I mean, you’re also the guy that said T-Mac is the only Dem that can win VA-Gov this year.

[Sir Mohamed]

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1392964198070693891

[Mr.Phips]

These jokers said Biden would win PA by 7. Why should I believe anything they say?

Subtracting ten means Biden lost PA by three.  He won by one, so it’s more like subtract six.

[Sir Mohamed]

These jokers said Biden would win PA by 7. Why should I believe anything they say?

Subtracting ten means Biden lost PA by three.  He won by one, so it’s more like subtract six.

I think it's possible the polling errors are more of a Trump phenomena than Biden approvals or even the GOP as whole. Polls in the 2018 midterms were largely correct. Biden is definitely a popular POTUS so far.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

These jokers said Biden would win PA by 7. Why should I believe anything they say?

Subtracting ten means Biden lost PA by three.  He won by one, so it’s more like subtract six.

I think it's possible the polling errors are more of a Trump phenomena than Biden approvals or even the GOP as whole. Polls in the 2018 midterms were largely correct. Biden is definitely a popular POTUS so far.

We have a Senate race in 2022 and 2024 we didn't have one in 2020, we will win PA by 7 next time with Bob Casey Jr and Fetterman up we aren't gonna win PA by such a narrow margin next time

But, Trump never been above 50, GA still has him as a 46 Prez

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Why does Mohommad not believe in blue waves, he thinks everything is gonna be close, and he was the one that posted 60 percent approvals for Biden, D's believe in blue waves not close Elections.  Except for 2016 and 2020, we have had blue waves 1992, 96, 2006, 2018, and hopefully 2022, D's lead on Generic ballot by 5.  Guess what in 2008/12 we won OH, iA, NC, FL and we won PVI by 0.6.

We didn't win 33 H seats in Summer of 2017 we won them in Summer of 2018 with ads, McCarthy and the Rs are back tracking on Insurrectionists and removing Liz Cheney isn't gonna help them with swing female voters, non Cuban Latinos, Arabs and Blks outside of WY