The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:42:07 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread (search mode)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1206213 times)
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #100 on: May 24, 2011, 03:00:19 PM »

Gallup back at 51-42.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #101 on: May 29, 2011, 02:30:13 PM »

They probably got a slightly more negative sample.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #102 on: June 03, 2011, 03:21:51 PM »

Gallup

Approve: 51 (-2)
Disapprove: 42 (+3)

Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #103 on: June 04, 2011, 12:49:44 PM »

Yeah, I'd say Obama's somewhere around 48-52. Probably a dip in approval due to job losses in May.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #104 on: June 04, 2011, 03:36:19 PM »

OBAMA LOST THREE POINTS IN APPROVAL, HE'S BEEN COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #105 on: July 15, 2011, 06:53:20 PM »

Obama Approval Rating June 2011 (Gallup)

46% Approve

46% Disapprove

Trends for comparison:

Carter: 29/57 (June 1979)

Reagan: 45/46 (June 1983)

Bush I: 72/21 (June 1991)

Clinton: 47/42 (June 1995)

Bush II: 62/34 (June 2003)


Its interesting how Obama and Reagan have very similar approval graphs on Gallup so far (the only major differences are the Tuscon and Bin Laden bounces).

Actually Reagan was upswing at this point, off from a low of 35%, IIRC.

Technically, Obama is on average, up from his lows in August of 2010.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #106 on: July 20, 2011, 03:02:41 AM »

Not really. It's a generic R, not any named candidate.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #107 on: July 28, 2011, 09:57:08 AM »

No one is winning the budget battle.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #108 on: July 30, 2011, 02:04:23 AM »

What is wrong with Gallup? Their erratic numbers are really unprofessional.

Considering the circumstances, nothing seems that off to me.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #109 on: August 05, 2011, 12:28:36 AM »

I am positive neither pbrower or JJ's analyses are biased by their political beliefs at all.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #110 on: August 05, 2011, 11:51:34 AM »

I am positive neither pbrower or JJ's analyses are biased by their political beliefs at all.

I don't know.  I think Obama can win in a good economy.  However, I think we're heading into recession.  We'll know the second one first.

Obviously, Obamacare was not politically popular.

We're can't be entering a new recession, we never left the old one. If we keep getting private sector job growth through 2012, then we'll see a fairly big victory for Barack Obama.

'Obamacare' was not unpopular in the fashion that you appear to be spinning it. A lot of people did not like Obama's healthcare reform because they thought it did not go far enough, and that will not drive them to vote for Mitt Romney, or whoever the GOP candidate will be.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #111 on: August 05, 2011, 10:28:00 PM »

Do you think Obama's numbers might dip into the 30s since the debt downgrade?

Almost certainly.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #112 on: August 05, 2011, 10:48:40 PM »

Obam+ runs the very good chance of being seen as:

1.  An ineffectual leader.

2.  The president who brought economic disaster.

lol

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nation right now if you think that only Barack Obama will be seen in a poor light. 
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #113 on: August 06, 2011, 09:19:43 AM »

Obam+ runs the very good chance of being seen as:

1.  An ineffectual leader.

2.  The president who brought economic disaster.

lol

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nation right now if you think that only Barack Obama will be seen in a poor light. 

He's currently the only president in the running. He's suppose to be the guy in charge.  Re-elections are referendums of incumbents.

Yes, it is a referendum of the incumbent, but the Republicans are also going to get a hellstorm of anger as well. You are incredibly silly if you somehow think that only Barack Obama is going to get anger over the debt crisis that the GOP manufactured.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #114 on: August 06, 2011, 09:29:56 AM »

We will see how Obama performs come 2012, and if he's in the same waters compared to 2011, he's gone.

I think this is the key.  Obama, or Obam+, could survive very low poll numbers, if there is time to recover.  Reagan and Clinton were in the mid-30's, but it was prior to 18 months out.

Ford, Carter, and GHW Bush all "troughed" in the last 18 months of their presidencies, and all recovered a bit by election day, but none of them won that election.

GW Bush was the bit of the exception, but his numbers bounced from a post 911 trough in 2003 (Iraq invasion).

All this is from Gallup.

Obama has not yet troughed, and I'd expect his numbers go lower.  If this was August of 2009 or 2010, I'd say this was totally meaningless.  It's 2011.

1. HW had approvals in the 70s before his trough.

2. Neither Carter nor Bush really recovered from their trough, and Ford is a special case that is pretty incomparable. Carter was somewhere in the 30s on election day, and Bush was around 40%. Meanwhile, Truman troughed around the same time Obama looks to be about to, and went on to recover and win re-election.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #115 on: August 06, 2011, 01:24:11 PM »

Gallup

Dissaprove: 50% (-2)

Approve: 42% (+1)

Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #116 on: August 06, 2011, 01:24:45 PM »

Oh, please, you had the same situation with Reagan, a small majority in the Senate and an increasingly hostile House; his attempts to run against Tip O'Neil failed.  As for the Tea Party, as noted, they didn't get everything they wanted, because of the Senate.

Obama would have to do what Clinton did, and triangulate.  When he tried with Democrats in the Senate, he got shot down.  Then he lapsed into passivity.

I doubt that this shift to the GOP is reversible.  Further, Obama, the incumbent, seems to be much less popular than Obama the candidate.  As for seniors, Obama was the one promoting Medicare cuts, and Obamacare, one he said would solve everything, hasn't.

People are wiser to how Obama will do as president, because they've him do it for four years (in 2012).  "Yes we can" is rapidly becoming "No he hasn't."  He's losing groups across the boards; he's only up with a majority with Democrats, African Americans, and people with advanced degrees.  There is a fair amount of over in that group.

If the economy improves by January, he had good shot; if after that, the economy doesn't clear up, he's done for.

Obama basically has to get the economy improving by the second quarter of next year.  If the economy starts to turn around in the summer of 2012, it will be too late.  People's opinions about the economy harden sometime between March and June of an election year.

Yes dear, we all know. That's why McCain won in '08.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #117 on: August 06, 2011, 06:07:13 PM »


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!
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #118 on: August 06, 2011, 06:29:21 PM »


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.

I was pointing out how you were making a ridiculous assertion that since pbrower was making fun of you, therefore he must believe that Obama has no chance.

I know that you didn't write those last two lines.

Also, what is "Obamanomics"? You keep throwing that term around like it means something.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #119 on: August 06, 2011, 09:03:45 PM »



I was pointing out how you were making a ridiculous assertion that since pbrower was making fun of you, therefore he must believe that Obama has no chance.

I know that you didn't write those last two lines.


What, by stating things that I've yet to say, even implied.  I've been the guy saying that you shouldn't count Obama out, though, I may change that opinion in the next several weeks.

Good, now we've establishes that you condone dishonesty.  Is that part of the Democratic Party platform?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obamanomics:  Spend a lot of money, get nothing to show for it, and make the economy worse.


Yes, clearly I am the dishonest one. Your definition of "Obamanomics" is not at all biased, hackish, laden with sarcasm, or dishonest.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #120 on: August 06, 2011, 10:57:03 PM »



I was pointing out how you were making a ridiculous assertion that since pbrower was making fun of you, therefore he must believe that Obama has no chance.

I know that you didn't write those last two lines.


What, by stating things that I've yet to say, even implied.  I've been the guy saying that you shouldn't count Obama out, though, I may change that opinion in the next several weeks.

Good, now we've establishes that you condone dishonesty.  Is that part of the Democratic Party platform?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obamanomics:  Spend a lot of money, get nothing to show for it, and make the economy worse.


Yes, clearly I am the dishonest one. Your definition of "Obamanomics" is not at all biased, hackish, laden with sarcasm, or dishonest.

No, just following a tradition, like Reaganomics.  Except, Reaganomics actually produced a good result.  Obananomics has not do date; does anyone here honestly think it will start?

And what exactly do you base the "has not produced a good result" part on? The economy has not gotten worse beyond what we had expected, or what we could attribute to President Bush It has been arguably getting better, until this whole debt cieling crisis that the Republicans in congress manufactured, which ultimately saw S&P's lowering of the US's credit rating.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #121 on: August 07, 2011, 01:35:07 PM »

Gallup

Dissaprove: 50% (nc)

Approve: 42% (nc)
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #122 on: August 07, 2011, 09:59:22 PM »

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.

Eisenhower, Nixon, and Kennedy, if we're talking about first term troughs (which is all we can be talking about).
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #123 on: August 07, 2011, 10:31:36 PM »

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.

Eisenhower, Nixon, and Kennedy, if we're talking about first term troughs (which is all we can be talking about).

I should have said since Watergate, but we obviously have no idea what JFK's numbers would have been in 1964. 



Ah, then I agree with you.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


« Reply #124 on: August 07, 2011, 10:40:32 PM »

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.

Eisenhower, Nixon, and Kennedy, if we're talking about first term troughs (which is all we can be talking about).

I should have said since Watergate, but we obviously have no idea what JFK's numbers would have been in 1964. 



Ah, then I agree with you.

Both Eisenhower and Nixon were off their lows, though. 

Eisenhower, yes. Nixon? Not exactly.

From the Gallup Graph, it appears that Nixon was right around his trough. He had a pretty long lukewarm period at 48-50% in late 1971, with a small bump in Oct. 1971. But he was most certainly not "off his low".
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 12 queries.