The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[Democratic Hawk]

I actually think it would be better for Democrats to just let Obama lose in 2012. 

Obama isn't the problem - it's congressional Democrats. He has allowed them to propose too much of his agenda and many feel that has caused his approvals to slip among Independents

The problem with the likes of Pelosi, Waxman, Frank and Rangel is they think they can draft legislation as if the United States were as blue as their districts

Obama, and congressional Democrats, should be building on the ideological coalition that elected him and them - and yes that includes conservatives. The base (52.78%) that elected Obama was liberal 19.58%; moderate 26.40% and conservative 6.80%. And it was enough support from conservatives that made all the difference between Obama winning, and losing, states like North Carolina (15 electoral votes), Indiana (9 electoral votes), Florida (27 electoral votes) and Ohio (20 electoral votes)

Democrats need to be rational and pragmatic moving forward

[Democratic Hawk]

Domestically, George W Bush was spineless. Any one can cut taxes, any one can ramp up spending on the never, never. He neither had the sense nor the guts to make responsible decisions on either taxes or spending - and that was an abdication of responsiblity

Obama is going to have to make tough decisions on both scores. That much is certain. And they won't necessarily be popular either, which will take a spine and, furthermore, demonstrate leadership

Leadership is making decisions that push the ideological comfort zone, rather than comply with it

[Democratic Hawk]

Obama increased spending. That is not different from Bush.

Yes and in response to the worst economic crisis since the 'Great Depression'

Obama's budget is not George W Bush's budget. Obama's strategy is one of "investment" be it in education, energy and healthcare, and he's committed to a tax policy that rewards WORK , and that was the nature of largest single tax cut (the Working Families Tax Credit) passed in the AERRA, which the elitist rightwing dogmatoid party in their House alternative to the CBR committed themselves to rolling back

Furthermore, Democrats are committed, moving forward, to "pay-as-you-go", which means any new spending and/or tax cuts have to be offset by cuts in spending and/or tax increases

[Democratic Hawk]

Monroe County (Mason-Dixon)

26% Excellent
25% Good
20% Fair
29% Poor

2008: 58% Obama, 41% McCain

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/assets/pdf/A2143666102.PDF

"Fair" is not necessarily a negative assessment. That could mean "I approve, but he could be doing better"

[Democratic Hawk]

No of course it's a pipe dream! Pbrower knows all!

No -- I just know how Obama campaigned in 2008 and expect much the same in 2012.

Obama, unlike McCain, waged a most positive spirited campaign in 2008 (and with that came the positive media coverage) and, God willing, the president will have a positive record to run on in 2012

The McCain-Palin campaign was a sickening spectacle, by comparison. Palin's rallies, during which she incited hatred on the stump towards a political opponent, undoubtedly, alienated many swing voters

[Democratic Hawk]

d) a corrupt media establishment basically working for him, often conforming to his campaign propaganda and covering up anything that could hurt him. 

That was more down to the fact that Obama, unlike McCain, waged a positive spirited campaign considering that the very same media had given their ol' busmate John McCain his free pass since Adam were a lad

With positive campaigns come positive coverage. Fair is fair

[Democratic Hawk]

Favorable are not approvals!

True

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Fair", of course, is not necessarily a negative appraisal

[Democratic Hawk]

He's dropping fast!

But I thought he was going to unite the country?

If this keeps up, he may well prove himself to be a bigger divider than George W. Bush ever was.

Perhaps, the cerebral pragmatist, who stands somewhere between modern liberalism and the "cult of neoliberalism" is proving too much for 'conservatives'

[Democratic Hawk]

Clearly, a super-human standard is being expected of a Democrat but no meaningful standard for a Republican whatsoever when comparing Obama and Bush, at this stage, in their presidencies; at least, as far as the economy and jobs are concerned

[Democratic Hawk]

Ohio, Oregon, New Jersey, Washington:

46% approval is probably enough to win Ohio.

The recent Nevada poll averages out with another for no real change.

... New Hampshire begs for a fresh poll. No way can New Hampshire be as unsympathetic to Obama as is Idaho.


Unlike Rowan Brandon, who distinguishes between "under 50%" and "over 50%" I go for "approval under disapproval" (shades of yellow to dark brown), a tie (white), and "approval greater than disapproval" (shades of green). It's strictly a matter of taste, and I can't say that one is more relevant than the other at this point.

If there is a real difference it may be that his suggests the idea that if the GOP has a really-strong candidate in the wings, Obama loses in places in which his approval rating is below 50%. Mine suggests that the GOP lacks someone capable of offering an alternative, and that many disgruntled conservatives will find the choice between an uninspiring right-winger and an effective incumbent cause them to not vote.    

46 % is probably not enough to win Ohio, considering that the gop candidate is good.

Do we already have a 2012 Republican candidate for president?

[Democratic Hawk]

The today rasmussen polls are very bad for obama and democrats. Probably the massach. effect

Good question -- what do the Republicans have to offer? They have been long on carping and short on solutions. The solution that the Republicans usually offer (all for the poor, starving plutocrats and executives -- irony intended) doesn't have such appeal when it appears in real life. Nostalgia for Dubya?

President Obama may have gone as far as he can with a liberal agenda to undo as much of the Dubya-era disaster as possible, and when the economic royalists get their way in November, Obama may end up with the role that Bill Clinton got -- keeping the Republicans honest and preventing their most blatant give-aways to crony capitalists, degradations of civil liberties, and intellectual fraud from taking hold.

We shall see soon enough what sort of Senator the newest one is... and if he is another DeMint/Chambliss/Coburn/Imhofe clone or stooge of Mike McConnell, then things might not be so great for the Republicans in November. Driving a truck or hunting moose isn't enough to constitute political wisdom.

Republicans have solutions. You can disagree with but they exist: stop spend, low tax, waterboarding terrorists, moral values,... Brown has beaten coakley on issues and republicans will  do the same in november.

Aye. Failed ones. The party which has proudly championed the economics of elite enrichment, middle class emaciation and wage slavery, more or less since the Golden Age of Capitalism (1950-1973) ended, should be wallowing back in purgatory 1934-style for their sins. Because there is nothing moral about any of that

The post-Depression era has proven that Democrats have presided over more robust economic growth; higher levels of job creation; a greater across the board rise in prosperity and fiscal responsibility. The debt as a % of GDP has consistently been reduced under all Democrats from Truman through to Clinton  - and with Obama almost certainty to be the the exception but only in so far as Bush dealt him the sh**ttiest economic hand since that which Hoover dealt FDR. Nothing that came between, good or bad, even comes close

And, far from winning a special Senate election in Massachusetts, if there were any standards whatsoever, the Republican Party would be at death's door

[Democratic Hawk]

Wenzen Strategies National Poll

Obama: 41/47

http://wenzelstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/wnd-election-preview-full-crosstabs-3-23-2010.pdf

Oh wow, a poll for WorldNetDaily. That's as useful as a poll for Kos.

Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor poll. Toss.

I concur because "fair", in itself, is not necessarily a negative assessment

[Democratic Hawk]

Indiana -- marginally contestable, a bad sign for the GOP.

Pay no attention to the map covered in a sharply disapproving mustard yellow. It is merely there to add delicious flavor to Obama's hot dog of a victory romp.

41% Strongly or Somewhat Approve, 45% Strongly Disapprove. At this stage more people are saying "Heck No" than either "Definitely Yes" or "I'll Probably Vote for Him."

Much will depend on who the Reactionary Party nominates as well as factors such as whether or not the economy has rebounded nicely, there are no unpopular foreign wars or major scandals directly implicating him

[Democratic Hawk]

Indiana -- marginally contestable, a bad sign for the GOP.

Pay no attention to the map covered in a sharply disapproving mustard yellow. It is merely there to add delicious flavor to Obama's hot dog of a victory romp.

41% Strongly or Somewhat Approve, 45% Strongly Disapprove. At this stage more people are saying "Heck No" than either "Definitely Yes" or "I'll Probably Vote for Him."

Much will depend on who the Reactionary Party nominates as well as factors such as whether or not the economy has rebounded nicely, there are no unpopular foreign wars or major scandals directly implicating him

He's basically taken ownership of Afghanistan by surging troops.

Yep and he'll own a double-dip recession should it come too

[Democratic Hawk]

I've still got a lot of time for this president

[Democratic Hawk]

GOP didn't even have +5 when Bush was re-elected.

In 2004, Democrats and Republicans each comprised 37% of the electorate. Independents, at 28%, narrowly broke for Kerry (49-48). It could be said that Bush 43 owed his re-election to 'Bush Democrats'

[Democratic Hawk]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45%, -1.

Disapprove 54%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, -2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at  43%, +1.

It just could be a bad sample.

45% won't win an election. Someone has their work cut out or they'll lose to Romeny, Santorum, the Easter Bunny, or a potato.

Yet, with 45% approval, the president, in this very same tracking, currently leads all four Republican contenders by margins ranging from 2% (Romney & Paul) and 8% (Gingrich). I'm not too worried given that even in recent weeks, he has occasionally trailed them (bar Gingrich, IIRC)

Of course, it would seem that the stronger the president's approvals the greater the margin by which he leads

[Democratic Hawk]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45%, -1.

Disapprove 54%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, -2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at  43%, +1.

It just could be a bad sample.

45% won't win an election. Someone has their work cut out or they'll lose to Romeny, Santorum, the Easter Bunny, or a potato.

Yet, with 45% approval, the president, in this very same tracking, currently leads all four Republican contenders by margins between 2 and 8. I'm not too worried given that even in recent weeks, he has occasionally trailed, certainly against Romney, possibly against Santorum

It is Mar.5 and the election is months away. Reagan trailed in both elections and so did Bush. I don't know of a single president in modern times that would lose an election in March of the election year because the public is still unfamiliar with their opponents. I know I'm a Republican and excited about the 45% which makes you mad but please try take into account how undecided voters have actually voted in elections rather than how they're polled on Mar.5, 2012 with the election 8 months away.

Much can and will happen between now and Nov. 6, for better, I pray, or worse