The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 25, 2021, 08:16:48 PM

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50 ... 410
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1085485 times)
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,372
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1100 on: June 15, 2009, 01:28:59 AM »

Didn't someone tell you that approval and who would actually vote for him are two different things?

Of course. People can vote for the lesser of two evils (both with lower-than 50% popularity) or the better of two good choices (both with popularity above 50%), in which the higher number likely wins. But the approval polls are all that we have, aside from the 2008 results.  That's why I have multiple colors on all predictive maps, and why I make so many qualifications, biggest of which is that Election 2012 is more than 40 months away. The second-biggest is that who the nominee is matters, too. This map is but one frame in a reel of film yet to be completed, and it could prove an outtake.

Votes that candidates won in 2008 won't mean a d@mned thing in November 2012. All that I show is a trend to the present in any prediction.

What doesn't  this model say?

1. That Obama is an effective President and that he will remain so.

2. The GOP can't rebound -- ever, or even before 2012.

3. That there won't be some Great Religious Revival that convinces enough people that it is their duty to vote for warmongers, exploiters, and reactionaries because their souls depend upon such even if it is contrary to their worldly interests (in essence, vote GOP or prepare to experience eternal damnation).

4. That people won't get nostalgic for the "good old days" of Dubya's Presidency.

5. That people will get more concerned about taxes than about income.

6. That Obama won't do appreciable campaigning.


.... Okay. This map must have some validity and some relevance, or a reputable analyst of the polls wouldn't offer it.  If I am GOP I notice that my Party is in deep trouble even in places where John McCain did extremely well.  I might find it astonishing that Colorado and Nevada are more iffy than one might expect -- but it must be troubling that such a state as Ohio is drifting out of reach, and that taking back such states as Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, and Indiana will be tough. Missouri, which McCain barely won, is big trouble.

I look at this map and figure that Obama gets:

     9 EV  (only states and DC  in near-black)
 126 EV  (add deep red)
 259 EV  (add medium red)
 358 EV  (add pink)
 397 EV  (add orange)
 442 EV  (add gray)

Sure, Parties whose Presidential candidate loses badly in a landslide often rebound, but they must as a rule try to re-establish winning coalitions. The GOP coalition of tycoons, executives, and the Religious Right successful in 2000 and 2004 has shrunk to the point that it can't win on its own. The GOP needs to rebuild the Party from the grass roots even if such means supporting liberals in places in which incumbent Democrats seem entrenched.  

Demographic trends can make things even worse for the GOP. The young adult vote split about 2-1 Democratic in 2008, and it is supplanting older and more conservative voters in the polls -- and youth now 14 to 18 don't seem to be bucking the trend.  The fast-growing Hispanic population is electoral trouble for a Party that has so many nativists.  The GOP has begun to lose Suburbia as Suburbia becomes increasingly urban in nature.

It shows that the so-called Blue Firewall is intact, and that it may be expanding. It also shows that recent GOP gains among poor whites (especially in the South)  could be ephemeral. To win Presidential elections, the GOP must rebuild nationwide appeal. How? I have no idea. No, don't bet on failure by Obama; such is a bad bet because even if one loses that bet the prize is tainted.

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,372
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1101 on: June 15, 2009, 01:47:48 AM »

These keep getting better and better.  I'm not a big fan of the rub-it-in thing after an election is over, but this is just too obnoxious.  I hope this is still going strong by the time 2012 rolls around because these maps are going to be hilarious.  And they'll be totally within the limits of reasonable gloating because of the total arrogance of the whole thing.  "Like, duh Obama is going to win Missouri by more than 10 points, are you kidding me?  Pssh..."

Consider this more the equivalent of an audit of the books of a publicly-held corporation. Audits can show much bad news. Anyone who fails to see patterns that suggest trouble for the GOP is blind. America is changing and the GOP seems mired in a pattern that barely worked in 2000, 2002, and 2004 and has since failed badly twice. Your Party needs a new Ronald Reagan who can appeal in all regions of America, who can co-opt moderates, and who can convince Americans to give conservatism a chance. Your Party needs to be able to field candidates -- liberals if necessary -- to challenge corrupt and incompetent urban machines better able to waste public funds than to teach kids in school, fix potholes, and enforce the law. 

Unpleasant as an audit is, it can show a struggling firm what it must do to save itself. Sometimes a failing company must change its policies with respect to collection of receivables or issuing credit, in dropping unprofitable lines, in finding assets  such as real estate better sold off to someone else who can use them better...

Republicans delude themselves perhaps even more than anything on this map if they believe that they can pick of Pennsylvania or Michigan and start winning again. The trouble is far deeper than the need to spend more money here or there or make more campaign appearances. The GOP cannot win in 2012 with the 2000-2004 coalition alone.
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1102 on: June 15, 2009, 08:48:37 AM »

It's not the best you have. You can use the actual votes in Nov, the approval in Nov, plus the approvals of today.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,372
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1103 on: June 15, 2009, 03:15:41 PM »

The "audit" to which I refer is not so much about the Obama Presidency as it is about the GOP and its leading figures -- and their prospects for winning in 2012 or later.
With a financial audit, poor finances reflect other problems. A company with efficient manufacturing or service, with a product line up to the standard that customers like and ideally pay a premium for, with a competent sales force and suitable advertising will have good finances unless the executives are robbing the company blind (which is comparatively easy to detect -- Enron notwithstanding). A company in financial trouble might have inefficiencies of manufacturing that competitors don't have. It might be selling an obsolescent product or one with huge flaws or other inadequacies. An obsolescent or substandard product ends up at such places as Dollar GeneralFamily Dollar, or Big Lots, which as a seller of low-end goods might not be so profitable a marketing outlet as is one that can handle a hierarchy of features and quality among its wares.  Its sales force might be inadequate and complacent.  Its advertising campaigns may need renovation. It might be losing its engineers and creative people to competitors who can pay more and offer better perks (note well that such is how IBM and Xerox long dominated their markets -- not because they consistently had the most innovative products but instead because they were attractive places for engineers). 

Nate Silver offers (which is even harsher than my assessment) a window into a political party in disarray.   I see the prospect of a Party going into ideological bankruptcy as its once-reliable constituencies seem to be shrinking or else drifting away. GOTV campaigns do no good when the votes are not to be found. Enthusiasm of the base isn't enough when the base shrinks below the critical mass (example: American Communists  have at times been even more satisfied with their perception of the rectitude and relevance of their cause than Democrats and Republicans with theirs, but we know that support for the CPUSA has never been enough to even shape an election).

The Republican Party continues to rely heavily upon monetary contributions from giant corporations, their large shareholders, and executives -- but those have become far less reputable in recent years to people who actually work for them. The number of people who vote Republican because they think that they owe such to trustworthy bosses declines as people trust their workplace bosses far less. It relies heavily upon the Religious Right for votes -- and the Religious Right is in serious decline as youth flee it. The only group of people with whom the GOP won more votes in 2008 was a group that I best describe as "poor whites", one of the most fickle of voting blocs.

Look at how that bloc has voted since 1944:

1944 FDR
1948 Thurmond
1952 Stevenson
1956 Stevenson
1960 Kennedy

1964 Goldwater/ LBJ split
1968 Wallace
1972 Nixon
1976 Carter
1980 Reagan
1984 Reagan
1988 GHWB

1992 Clinton/Perot/GHWB split
1996 Clinton/Perot/Dole split

2000 Dubya
2004 Dubya
2008 McCain



The partisan divide is less significant than the ideological divide. It's not clear whether Stevenson was the liberal and Eisenhower was the conservative  in the 1950s. Kennedy and Carter were more liberal (if slightly so) than their opponents. Poor whites seem more likely than any other demographic groups to vote for third-party candidates, as shown in the inability of Wallace and Thurmond to get significant strength outside the South; they are also likely to vote for the Presidential candidates that the rest of the country rejects (examples: Stevenson won only in the South and bordering states in 1952 and 1956, and Goldwater won only his own non-Southern state of Arizona and some Southern states in 1964.   

Should the GOP lose enough of it in the 2012 general election, then the GOP nominee will lose in a blowout reminiscent of 1972 or 1984. The South has lots of poor whites, and if enough of them can recognize that they have more in common with poor blacks than with large landowners, then Obama wins states like Mississippi and Alabama in 2012.

It's up to GOP leadership to decide, as they alone can do, how to rescue their own Party from what looks like a serious and possibly lethal decline. In the 2008 election the GOP lost states that hadn't voted for a Democratic nominee in a long time: Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia. They lost two states that had recently been seen as examples of the ascendancy of conservatism (Nevada and Colorado). They ran the strongest GOP nominee since Reagan (John McCain) and he still lost.  Conservatism is not dead, but any conservatism based upon superstition and class privilege has at most a limited shelf life. That shelf life seems to have expired, and even the Democrats are finding ways in which to attract conservatives who have objectives other than superstition and class privilege.

The GOP has been failing to appeal to youth who have no stake so far in class privilege because they see it only as a means of constricting such freedom as thy think rightly theirs, and even less in religion-based superstitions. If one sees the GOP as the de facto conservative party in America  then it is going far from the conservative precepts of Edmund Burke that remain relevant for over two hundred years. Conservatives, to have credibility, must offer something worthy of preservation as a legacy to humanity and must promote caution as an antidote to radical rhetoric and causes. Conservatism will have a strong revival in American history, but perhaps as a rift develops in the Democratic Party between those who want to go further and faster and those who think that political change once thought radical around 2008 is worthy of preservation. There just might not be a Republican Party, or it might have become another minor Party. 


Logged
Vepres
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1104 on: June 15, 2009, 04:43:09 PM »

Remember, if the election were held today against a generic Republican with almost no campaigning from either side, this would be the result. The interesting thing will be to see the trends from now to November 2012.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,372
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1105 on: June 15, 2009, 05:15:30 PM »

Remember, if the election were held today against a generic Republican with almost no campaigning from either side, this would be the result. The interesting thing will be to see the trends from now to November 2012.

Beyond question, Obama will face a not-so-generic GOP challenger in 2012, who will likely run a spirited campaign for the Presidency and will choose a VP candidate. That campaign could be very effective in challenging Obama -- or it could be a travesty. We just don't know.  Nobody can predict how popular Obama will be at the time, and how well Obama is perceived as President at the time will more determine whether he is re-elected or will not be re-elected. There will likely be gaffes by both sides, some gaffes more troublesome than others. 

The challenger will have clear and unambiguous connections to a region and will do better or worse among some of the usual Republican constituencies.  Obama will do better and worse among different Democratic constituencies.

Political culture will at the least face some incremental changes.  Some of those will be demographic. Some things won't change. I predict that George W. Bush will be hated as few ex-Presidents have been hated, and the Obama campaign will try as much as possible to link the Republican nominee, whether Saxby Chambliss or Olympia Snowe, to his still-disgraced predecessor. Will it work? Ask in 2012.

So far I assume that the so-called Blue Firewall will hold.  A bunch of states and the District of Columbia have voted indiscriminately for Democratic nominees for President since 1992 (WA, OR, CA, HI, MN, WI, IL, MI, PA, MD, DC, DE, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, VT, ME) and three have voted only once since then for a Republican nominee (IA, NH, NM) -- and none of them was close in 2008. Such states constituted 264 electoral votes in 2008 and will likely comprise about 255 in 2012. Add Florida, North Carolina, or Ohio, or two of CO, NV, AZ, MO, IN, and VA and the GOP nominee loses.  There won't be much room for error for the GOP nominee.

Nate Silver suggests that if nothing really changes, then Obama stands to win an electoral landslide on the scale of Eisenhower in 1956. Much will change.     
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,880
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1106 on: June 16, 2009, 01:16:56 AM »

Approval is actually a very good tracker of how well an incumbent performs, generally.  Approval tends to decline among members of the opposite party and ideology as election-time increases tensions.  Other than that, it's genuinely the best projection method we have.

It's Generic GOPer vs. Generic Dem.  I mean, it's useless, but would an accurate presentation of who's leading as of now be any more useful?  It's fun.
Logged
Rowan
RowanBrandon
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,692


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1107 on: June 16, 2009, 06:24:57 AM »
« Edited: June 16, 2009, 06:35:37 AM by RowanBrandon »

New York City-Quinnipiac

Approve 79%
Disapprove 16%

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?ReleaseID=1314&What=&strArea=;&strTime=0
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,114
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1108 on: June 16, 2009, 12:44:41 PM »

Wisconsin (Public Policy Polling)Sad

55% Approve
40% Disapprove

PPP surveyed 580 Wisconsin voters on June 9th and 10th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-4.1%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_WI_616.pdf
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,114
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1109 on: June 17, 2009, 01:40:34 PM »

Georgia (Strategic Vision)Sad

49% Approve
43% Disapprove

The results are based on telephone interviews with 800 likely voters in Georgia, aged 18+, and conducted June 12-14, 2009 by telephone. The margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/georgia_poll_061709.htm
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,114
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1110 on: June 17, 2009, 01:59:04 PM »

HUGE SurveyUSA release (polls conducted May 30 and June 15):

Alabama:

May: 47% Approve, 51% Disapprove (-4)
June: 46% Approve, 49% Disapprove (-3)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=ec90f8c3-6922-453a-9548-142faea42807

California:

May: 65% Approve, 32% Disapprove (+33)
June: 64% Approve, 32% Disapprove (+32)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=c717d146-99e7-4de8-8217-9fb792fc2fb8

Iowa:

May: 66% Approve, 31% Disapprove (+35)
June: 57% Approve, 39% Disapprove (+18)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=6408b81e-dd35-4b69-9ad6-d765376ae58b

Kansas:

May: 53% Approve, 44% Disapprove (+9)
June: 49% Approve, 49% Disapprove (-)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=c9cb9d95-0451-467c-8613-efb0bf5d4a7e

Kentucky:

May: 51% Approve, 45% Disapprove (+6)
June: 47% Approve, 51% Disapprove (-4)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=7821d33a-39fb-4798-bbec-849448704b72

Minnesota:

May: 61% Approve, 36% Disapprove (+25)
June: 59% Approve, 36% Disapprove (+23)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=836b59e0-2aa3-472d-a03b-0c523b7edbc9

Missouri:

May: 52% Approve, 44% Disapprove (+8)
June: 51% Approve, 45% Disapprove (+6)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=df83ddf0-e81b-4665-8845-22c2259d620e

New Mexico:

May: 62% Approve, 35% Disapprove (+27)
June: 53% Approve, 44% Disapprove (+9)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=fedc4074-c638-4e1f-8071-439470cd78cb

New York:

May: 72% Approve, 26% Disapprove (+46)
June: 65% Approve, 30% Disapprove (+35)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=a5e2c33c-bec0-49e9-9f7a-41e6c61021ff

Oregon:

May: 56% Approve, 40% Disapprove (+16)
June: 56% Approve, 41% Disapprove (+15)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=87dabdb7-5435-402e-891e-11b3bf475127

Virginia:

May: 60% Approve, 36% Disapprove (+24)
June: 59% Approve, 36% Disapprove (+23)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=160c2abe-62b7-457a-85cd-dede0055e407

Washington:

May: 63% Approve, 33% Disapprove (+30)
June: 63% Approve, 33% Disapprove (+30)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=c34262fe-7152-4e56-be8d-dd7e32b0f6dd

Wisconsin:

May: 57% Approve, 39% Disapprove (+18)
June: 59% Approve, 38% Disapprove (+21)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=4073822a-e65c-48e3-8d7f-7b02fc7d5456
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,336
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.97, S: -1.57

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1111 on: June 17, 2009, 02:21:47 PM »

He's slightly going down. New Mexico is interesting, as it is below the national average. It could end up being a toss-up on election day, 2012. I'm still suprised how high Obama's approval ratings are in Virginia though. Besides that, nothing suprising here. I think most expect Obama's approval ratings to keep slipping until the economy recovers (if it does).
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,114
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1112 on: June 17, 2009, 02:27:36 PM »

Approval Map (only 1 month old polls):

Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,202
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1113 on: June 17, 2009, 03:11:45 PM »

Obama's Kansas and Iowa numbers are a real rolercoaster.
Ten and twenty points swings every month? Really?
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,941
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1114 on: June 17, 2009, 03:14:30 PM »

New Mexico is really suprising. Wonder what the big drop there was for.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,372
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1115 on: June 17, 2009, 03:16:37 PM »
« Edited: June 17, 2009, 07:40:25 PM by pbrower2a »

Mine again, and not my interpretation of Nate Silver's model:



White indicates an exact tie -- in Kansas. That is a huge surprise.




Key:

GOP wins by 10% or more
GOP wins 5-9%
GOP wins up to 5%
tossup
Obama wins up to 5%
Obama wins 5-9%
Obama wins 10% or more


I would not be surprised to see several southern states (notably TN, AR, and LA) become GOP-leaners in view of Kentucky.  My system causes me to force KY into the GOP category but GA out of it. I'm not calling Kansas a tossup.
 
Logged
5280
MagneticFree
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,398
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.97, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1116 on: June 17, 2009, 06:02:57 PM »

Do you think ND, SD, MT, CO will lean GOP anytime soon?
Logged
Rowan
RowanBrandon
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,692


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1117 on: June 17, 2009, 06:21:12 PM »

NBC/WSJ Obama Approval
Approve 56%
Disapprove 34%

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ-NBC_Poll090617.pdf
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,941
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1118 on: June 17, 2009, 06:24:46 PM »


...Wow... and that's from NBC.
Logged
BM
BeccaM
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,261
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1119 on: June 17, 2009, 07:28:45 PM »

That approval is exactly the same as Rasmussen's from today.
Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 43,765
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1120 on: June 17, 2009, 07:48:01 PM »


...and the Wall Street Journal.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,709
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1121 on: June 17, 2009, 08:20:59 PM »


Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has a +8 favorability rating (45-37) and the Republican Party a -19 favorability rating (25-44)

Sample: Dem/Dem-leaning Independent 41%; Independent 18%; Rep/Rep-leaning Independent: 30%
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,114
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1122 on: June 17, 2009, 11:54:40 PM »

New Mexico is really suprising. Wonder what the big drop there was for.

Could be a simple outlier.

Back to 60%+ next month ...
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,372
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1123 on: June 18, 2009, 12:31:22 AM »

Do you think ND, SD, MT, CO will lean GOP anytime soon?

CO? I am surprised that Colorado is so close as it is. The poll is old.

SD? The latest poll (and it is old) indicated that Obama had about a 60% approval rating in the state.

ND? No poll, but I assume that it goes with its southern neighbor.

MT? No poll yet, but I figure that Montana -- which was close in 2008 -- is more likely to go D than either Dakota.

Bonuses:

AZ? I am surprised that it seems to be for a "generic Republican".

UT? I call it a leaner for the GOP because of its history even with a positive poll for Obama.

ID? WY? No poll, so I go on the 2008 election.

Nebraska:

NE-01? I'm going with NE-02 on that one as a clue. No poll.

NE-02? There is a poll out, and Obama had a huge favorable rating.

NE-03? Arguably the most conservative electoral vote or set of votes up for grabs in  an election

NE- at large? Practically a toss-up.   
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,709
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1124 on: June 18, 2009, 12:28:17 PM »

National (CBS/NYT):

Obama (Job Approval):

Approve 63% (-); Disapprove 26% (-)

Foreign policy: Approve 59% (-); Disapprove 25% (-)
The threat of terrorism: Approve 57% (+2); Disapprove 24% (-4)
The economy: Approve 57% (+1); Disapprove 35% (+2)
Health care: Approve 44%; Disapprove 34%
Problems facing the auto industry: Approve 41%; Disapprove 46%

Views of the budget deficit:

41% say the government should spend money to stimulate the economy, even if it means increasing the deficit; 54% say the government should not spend money to stimulate the economy and should instead focus on reducing the deficit

30% say that the Obama administration has developed a clear strategy for dealing with the budget deficit; 60% say it has not

Democratic Party: Favorable 57% (+1); Unfavorable 32% (-2)
Republican Party: Favorable 28% (-3); Unfavorable 58% (-)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/us/politics/18poll.html?_r=2&ref=politics

CBS/NYT interviewed 895 adults between June 12-16, 2009. Sample: Democrat 35% (-); Republican 24% (+4); Independent 31% (-5)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50 ... 410  
« previous next »
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 0.07 seconds with 10 queries.