The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[pbrower2a]

South Dakota has been polled, and North Dakota and Montana ordinarily move with it. 

[DariusNJ]

Democracy Corps:

56% approve, 36% disapprove

Dems: 89\6
Reps: 17\74
Inds: 50\39

http://www.democracycorps.com/strategy/2009/06/creating-a-sustainable-majority-for-health-care-reform/

Also, CNN releases a poll they did a MONTH ago.

66% approve, 29% disapprove
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/25/obama.poll/index.html

Strategic Vision New Jersey: 56% approve, 38% disapprove
http://strategicvision.biz/political/newjersey_poll_062409.htm

ARG: 57% approve, 41% disapprove
http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

This poll shows Obama approval among independents as 47\48.

[Rowan]

FWIW, Gallup is back down to 57/35, tying the worst of his presidency.

[You kip if you want to...]

FWIW, Gallup is back down to 57/35, tying the worst of his presidency.

Romney is obviously going to win in a landslide then I guess. :/

[Zarn]

FWIW, Gallup is back down to 57/35, tying the worst of his presidency.

Romney is obviously going to win in a landslide then I guess. :/

I guess facts scare you, so you have to make extreme claims to make fun of people reporting them...

It's not like he made a stupid map with his information, claiming a landslide for Obama or anyone else.

[East Coast Republican]

I've been lurking and this has been annoying me for a while so I'm just going to come out with it.

Pbrower2a: You are the biggest hack on this entire website.  Utah going blue?  475 EV Obama landslide based on approval ratings instead of head to head polls?  Even if head to heads were used it's so far out from 2012.  You then try to use arguments 'well NOBODY KNEW INDIANA WOULD GO BLUE AND IT DID SEE!?'

Dude just post the approvals and cut the weak biased analyses.  You want to analyze politics in this nation?  Do it from an independent point of view-that means stop saying stupid stuff about Utah and how Obama's got it all locked up for 2012 (this is still 2009, right?).  Yeah, the President looks good for 2012 but...Texas?  UTAH?!  Give it a rest man.

To the UK guy with the sarcastic comment: It's a fact that he's tied with the worst rating of his Presidency although it's still a very good rating.  Get off TrueRepublic's back.

On a final note, isn't it funny that my username has Republican in it but I have yet to go on any huge rants against Obama or devote multiple maps to my insane red state theories?  Hmmm.  I do notice this section of the forum attracts diehard Obama supporters who disguise their fascinations as pure analyses.

[East Coast Republican]

6/29/09 from Rasmussen Reports.

55% approval
44% disapproval

You can rejoice pbrower2a for the President's approval rating on Rasmussen Reports has gone up 1%.  It looks like my previous post will be proven wrong.  You can now use this against me.

[pbrower2a]

Pbrower2a: You are the biggest hack on this entire website.  Utah going blue?  475 EV Obama landslide based on approval ratings?  You then try to use arguments 'well NOBODY KNEW INDIANA WOULD GO BLUE AND IT DID SEE!?'

Dude just post the approvals and cut the weak biased analyses.  You want to analyze politics in this nation?  Do it from an independent point of view-that means stop saying stupid stuff about Utah and how Obama's got it all locked up for 2012 (this is still 2009, right?).  Yeah, the President looks good for 2012 but...Texas?  UTAH?!  Give it a rest man.

On a final note, isn't it funny that my username has Republican in it but I have yet to go on any huge rants against Obama or devote multiple maps to my insane red state theories?  Hmmm.  I do notice this section of the forum attracts diehard Obama supporters who disguise their fascinations as pure analyses.

1. Hack? Hardly. I state my assumptions. I recognize that all polls have flaws. Much can change between now and November 2012. The election will be a test of how well Obama performs as President. If he proves incompetent, corrupt, or irrelevant he will be defeated in 2012.

2. I expect extreme partisans of the Right to dislike him. Some people will never vote for any any Democratic nominee; some will never vote for any Republican nominee. Moderates decide who wins and who doesn't. We have three distinct populations of voters in America: left-leaning Democrats, right-leaning Republicans, and the moderates who hold the balance of power in Presidential politics.

3. I recognize any possibility of Obama winning Utah or Texas as a fringe possibility. The LDS Church creates a social and political ethos -- oddly, a theocratic welfare state that makes a large federal role in government activity irrelevant. Utah is going to vote for the Republican nominee except under one circumstance: that the GOP nominee shows disrespect for the LDS Church. Mormons in Utah don't need the Democratic Party except as a protest vote against some Republicans that members perceive as nutty (Goldwater 1964) or someone who offends Mormon sensibilities.  Huckabee has said some very nasty things about Mormonism, but he has plenty of time in which to make amends. It's up to him to make those amends.

Of course Mitt Romney wins Utah by a huge margin against Obama under any circumstances, even if Obama has a 60+% approval rating in Utah in 2012. I have Utah shown as "weak generic GOP" because of an old poll that suggested that Obama had a slight positive rating a couple months ago.
 
Big Oil and farm-and-ranch interests have unusual influence in Texas politics that push it toward the conservative side of the political spectrum despite demographics that make it more like California than like Alabama even if it has recently voted more like Alabama than like California. The State is hard to place in any region or even to describe as a region in its own right.   No state is a good analogue for Texas statewide politics. I have the model of "Kansas grafted onto Florida" because parts of Texas are much like Kansas in politics and parts are more like Florida.  

Texas goes to Obama only in a landslide. Obama would have to pick up everything that he won in 2008 and at the least flip Missouri, Georgia, and Arizona to get a chance to win Texas. Such are 70 electoral votes in those four states alone; 365+70 = 435, which is close to an Eisenhower-scale victory. That's without winning over Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky, which together are about as big as Texas in electoral votes and generally move together.  I have suggested that Texas goes for Obama only if Florida goes for him by at least 8%. Texas is absolutely not a lock for the GOP.

My current projection of Texas as a toss-up is based on a poll that looks like an outlier.  The same role that keeps me from projecting Arizona as a tossup (most recent poll) forces me to consider Texas at least a toss-up.

4. I did see Indiana as a possible pickup for the Democrats as soon as Obama was the Democratic nominee. Obama got lots of free media access in Indiana because about a third of the state is in or feeds into an Illinois TV market (northwest Indiana, Terre Haute, Evansville); fully a half are in the Chicago newspaper and radio markets (South Bend - Elkhart, maybe Indianapolis). Obama got much attention in Indiana, all positive. The Indiana economy  that seemed to be rural enough to weather economic vicissitudes that neighboring Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio feel hard was getting hit hard. Democratic nominees don't ordinarily campaign much in Indiana -- and Obama did. Despite the rural image of Indiana it is more urban than it looks; its population is heavily concentrated in a few medium-to-large cities, and Obama had a campaign style well suited to urban campaigning.

5. Political culture matters greatly. I see a bunch of states that Mike Huckabee wins because those states are perfect fits for successful politicians from Arkansas. States that voted for Bill Clinton but against Obama by huge margins will vote for Mike Huckabee. Romney probably loses them because he is the d@mnyankee politician that they don't know. Forget race as an explanation; Tennessee came close to voting for Harold Ford in 2006.

6. Beyond any question, the GOP has shown no sign of cutting into the Blue Firewall of states that haven't voted for any GOP nominee since 1992. Such states accounted for 248 electoral votes in 2008 and probably 240 in 2012. Add Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico that have voted only once for a GOP nominee and one has about 260 electoral votes, leaving little room for any GOP victory in 2012. All of those states voted for Obama by large margins (9%+)... which means that the GOP has to win just about everything else to win in 2012.  The deep red colors on my map largely show that.

The GOP has been losing New England, the West Coast, and much of the Midwest badly. It's in part the rural/urban divide; it's also that the Religious Right never got a strong hold in those regions. It's not enough for a Republican hack to say that "these regions will come to their senses and turn against tax-and-spend Democrats". The GOP has failed to hold onto middle-class suburbanites who used to show more concern about taxes than about public services. Suburbia now has big-city problems, and much of the middle class is government employees (teachers, cops, firefighters). Big Business used to succeed at telling employees that their prosperity depended upon the prosperity of the companies that they worked for, but in the last two decades and especially this decade employees of Big Business know that their continued employment depends more upon the caprice of some executive who might get a fat bonus for a mass firing of staff.

7. Nobody knows how much campaigning Obama will do. Nobody knows who his opponent will be. Both will matter in the electoral count.

8. The difference between Obama winning 270 electoral votes in 2012 and 450 electoral votes is ultimately a quibble. He will be no more the 44th President of the United States in a second term whether he picks up the "Blue Firewall + Virginia" or makes electoral inroads into a bunch of states that he lost by huge margins in 2008. In view of the conduct of the last three Presidents to win re-election by landslides (Reagan, Nixon, LBJ), I'm not sure that an Obama landslide that bloats his ego would be good for America. Eisenhower kept his head on straight, but Obama is not an Eisenhower-like leader.  

[Aizen]

jesus christ. who the hell is going to read that?

[tmthforu94]

jesus christ. who the hell is going to read that?

I actually did. I think he makes excellent points, and I agree with just about everything he said. In a close election, Obama is guarenteed about 250 EV's, while a Republican is guarenteed about 150. I honestly believe the only way Obama will lose is in a landslide. If it's close, he'll probably win.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

But he continues to make the same assumption that states that give Obama a net approval will ultimately vote for him. Candidates have lost states even if the state approves of their job. The most recent example was Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island, who lost reelection despite having something like a 66% approval rating.

Just because Utah gives Obama a net positive approval rating does in no way mean he will win the state, or make it close.

[Vepres]

But he continues to make the same assumption that states that give Obama a net approval will ultimately vote for him. Candidates have lost states even if the state approves of their job. The most recent example was Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island, who lost reelection despite having something like a 66% approval rating.

Just because Utah gives Obama a net positive approval rating does in no way mean he will win the state, or make it close.

QFT

[pbrower2a]

But he continues to make the same assumption that states that give Obama a net approval will ultimately vote for him. Candidates have lost states even if the state approves of their job. The most recent example was Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island, who lost reelection despite having something like a 66% approval rating.

Just because Utah gives Obama a net positive approval rating does in no way mean he will win the state, or make it close.

I concur on Lincoln Chaffee. His defeat in the 2006 Senatorial election was a freakish event.  He lost his Senate seat because of an odd circumstance: the extreme unpopularity of his political party in Rhode Island in 2006. In 2012 Obama might get positive approval ratings in a bunch of states that voted strongly against him in 2008, and the Bradley effect may strike even without any obvious signs. Should 2012 polls suggest that Obama might have a 55% approval rating in such a state as Louisiana and the Republican nominee be Sarah Palin, then I expect Obama to lose Louisiana. The Bradley effect is more likely to operate in Louisiana than in Michigan.

It is possible that Obama could have an approval rating of 60% in Utah in 2012 and lose the state by a wide margin should Mitt Romney be the GOP nominee. Likewise it is imaginable that Obama could have a similar approval rating in Arkansas and lose the state to Mike Huckabee. Should the GOP nominee offer a convincing repudiation of his anti-Mormon statements, he wins Utah.  

Don't you accept that it would be a good thing that if some political candidates takes swipes at the people of a State because of their ethnicity or religion that he should lose that state? If a Democratic nominee were to change the "N" to a "J" for the largest city in the United States and its own state that he should  lose a bunch of states in which such is generally considered objectionable? I need not be a Jew to find Jew-baiting intolerable. Utah is more Mormon than New York is Jewish (New York City is more Catholic than Jewish, by the way).

But note well; there are a lot of states that Obama doesn't have to win to get re-elected so long as he holds onto the Blue Firewall If one accepts the Blue Firewall as all states that haven't voted for a Republican nominee more than once since 1992, inclusive, and wins one of Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Arizona, Indiana, or Missouri -- or Colorado and one of Nevada or Montana -- then Obama wins re-election. He would have to be catastrophically inept as President to lose anything in the Blue Firewall.  (I make an allowance for re-apportionment of members of the House of Representatives as the result of the 2010 Census).  

[5280]

New polls, some weird.

Go figure. Who is the Texas Lyceum? How could anyone poll a 68% approval rating for Obama in Texas when he slips below 50% in Florida?   

According to Obama's approval ratings map, this is the 2012 election map I came up with an average Republican opponent.  It's only speculation.

The closer to dark green, Obama wins that state.  Light green and yellow, Republicans win that.

You have to admit, this map is pretty fair according to the polls.

[pbrower2a]

New polls, some weird.

Go figure. Who is the Texas Lyceum? How could anyone poll a 68% approval rating for Obama in Texas when he slips below 50% in Florida?   

According to Obama's approval ratings map, this is the 2012 election map I came up with an average Republican opponent.  It's only speculation.

The closer to dark green, Obama wins that state.  Light green and yellow, Republicans win that.

You have to admit, this map is pretty fair according to the polls.

[pbrower2a]

Here's what I think will happen:

Strong Republican win (10% +)
Weak  Republican win (5-9.9%)
Bare    Republican win (under 5%)
No tossups shown
Bare    Obama win  (under 5%)
Weak  Obama win  (5-9.9%)
Strong Obama win  (10% +)

This is a cautious prediction based on assumptions that:

1. Demographic change will be enough to flip Missouri and solidify Obama 's 2008 wins in Indiana and North Carolina

2. Obama maxed out support in Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina in 2008 -- and really, the Blue Firewall.

3. The absence of a candidate from Arizona takes away the Favorite Son effect

4. Obama makes gains in the South and Plains, but not enough to win anything other than Missouri.

5. Obama meets expectations of most who voted for him but doesn't convince enough of those who voted against him to change their minds enough to flip any state, except in Arizona (again, no Favorite Son effect will be active there) .

6. The GOP nominee has no unusual weaknesses in any region that Obama lost. 

[Democratic Hawk]

CNN/Opinion Dynamics: National

Approve 61% (-1); Disapprove 37% (+2)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/29/obamas-approval-rating-remains-steady-poll-says/

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A new national poll indicates that President Barack Obama's approval rating among Americans remains steady.

Sixty-one percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday say they approve of how Obama's handling his duties as president. Thirty-seven percent disapprove.

The 61 percent approval rating is down one point from May and down six points from February.

"Since March, Obama's approval rating has gone down one percentage point each month in CNN polls," notes CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "In March it was 64 percent; in April it was 63 percent. Last month his approval rating stood at 62 percent and now it is at 61 percent."

The poll suggests when it comes to opinions of Obama, gender and generation gaps continue.

Sixty-seven percent of women questioned in the survey approve of how Obama's handling his job as president. That number drops to 54 percent among men. Two-thirds of people under 50 years old questioned in the poll approve of the president's handling of his duties. That number drops to 54 percent among people over 50 years of age.

"We saw these same patterns in the exit polls on election night," Holland says. "It looks like the groups who voted heavily for Obama are sticking with him, but the groups in which his vote was lower are starting to drift."

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted Friday (6/26) through Sunday (6/28), with 1,026 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

[5280]

Here's what I think will happen:

Strong Republican win (10% +)
Weak  Republican win (5-9.9%)
Bare    Republican win (under 5%)
No tossups shown
Bare    Obama win  (under 5%)
Weak  Obama win  (5-9.9%)
Strong Obama win  (10% +)

This is a cautious prediction based on assumptions that:

1. Demographic change will be enough to flip Missouri and solidify Obama 's 2008 wins in Indiana and North Carolina

2. Obama maxed out support in Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina in 2008 -- and really, the Blue Firewall.

3. The absence of a candidate from Arizona takes away the Favorite Son effect

4. Obama makes gains in the South and Plains, but not enough to win anything other than Missouri.

5. Obama meets expectations of most who voted for him but doesn't convince enough of those who voted against him to change their minds enough to flip any state, except in Arizona (again, no Favorite Son effect will be active there) .

6. The GOP nominee has no unusual weaknesses in any region that Obama lost. 

I think Colorado will flip to Romeny if he runs.  If Obama doesn't stay away from being a far left radical, then Arizona will stay blue.  Nevada, keep as toss-up.

[marvelrobbins]

Obama Is in better shape than Clinton or Bush JR were.

In 1996 Clinton lost 2 States that Perot caused him to win Colorado and Montanta.He also
lost Georgia which he barely won In 1992.He won Florida which Perot cost him In 1992.He
also won Arizona which he might have won In 1992 had Perot stayed out of the general
Election.

Bush In 2004 with a 50 percent approvol ratings lost New Hamphserie which would have gone to al Gore In 2000 If not for Ralph Nader and won Iowa and New Mexico which he
lost In 2000 due to Incresed support from Hispanic by fear tactics.

As I have said many times Obama will not win a landslide In 2012.Obama has a good shot at taking Missouri.His best approval from a Mccain state.Nader may have cost Obama Missouri In 2008.Nader got more votes here than Mccain beat Obama by.Beyond that Arizona without Mccain on the ticket could be In Play.Indiana and Noth Carolna are questions.My thinking Is If he loses one It will Indiana.NC Is more likely to stay Dem.

[Vepres]

Obama Is in better shape than Clinton or Bush JR were.

In 1996 Clinton lost 2 States that Perot caused him to win Colorado and Montanta.He also
lost Georgia which he barely won In 1992.He won Florida which Perot cost him In 1992.He
also won Arizona which he might have won In 1992 had Perot stayed out of the general
Election.

Bush In 2004 with a 50 percent approvol ratings lost New Hamphserie which would have gone to al Gore In 2000 If not for Ralph Nader and won Iowa and New Mexico which he
lost In 2000 due to Incresed support from Hispanic by fear tactics.

As I have said many times Obama will not win a landslide In 2012.Obama has a good shot at taking Missouri.His best approval from a Mccain state.Nader may have cost Obama Missouri In 2008.Nader got more votes here than Mccain beat Obama by.Beyond that Arizona without Mccain on the ticket could be In Play.Indiana and Noth Carolna are questions.My thinking Is If he loses one It will Indiana.NC Is more likely to stay Dem.

You know who had approvals higher than Obama's at this point... Jimmy Carter.

Yeah, he really won his reelection in a landslide didn't he.

[tmthforu94]

Obama Is in better shape than Clinton or Bush JR were.

In 1996 Clinton lost 2 States that Perot caused him to win Colorado and Montanta.He also
lost Georgia which he barely won In 1992.He won Florida which Perot cost him In 1992.He
also won Arizona which he might have won In 1992 had Perot stayed out of the general
Election.

Bush In 2004 with a 50 percent approvol ratings lost New Hamphserie which would have gone to al Gore In 2000 If not for Ralph Nader and won Iowa and New Mexico which he
lost In 2000 due to Incresed support from Hispanic by fear tactics.

As I have said many times Obama will not win a landslide In 2012.Obama has a good shot at taking Missouri.His best approval from a Mccain state.Nader may have cost Obama Missouri In 2008.Nader got more votes here than Mccain beat Obama by.Beyond that Arizona without Mccain on the ticket could be In Play.Indiana and Noth Carolna are questions.My thinking Is If he loses one It will Indiana.NC Is more likely to stay Dem.

lol
I love it when people blame elections on 3rd party candidates.
Because look at it from the other side: Clinton caused Perot to lose Maine and Montana, as well as a couple other states. If it wasn't for Clinton, Perot could have won. If it wasn't for Bush, Perot could have won.

[CJK]

We need to stop acting like the states that haven't voted Republican ince the 1980s provide some sort of structural advantage to Obama. The Democrats have won those states because Republican national margins have been nonexistent to narrow.

[marvelrobbins]

Republicans have been saying for years Perot caused Clinton's election.You have to acknoldge third party candiates cost candiates from major party states In General Election.

Keep bringing up Carter.Obama Is not Carter.A better candiate than Carter ever was.And
better President.Clinton and Bush won reelection.Although with Bush It was more an election after the supreme court stopped the recount.

On this forum I repersente the Democrats where most others are against him on this forum.I will be for Obama while many others here are for romney.

[5280]

Republicans have been saying for years Perot caused Clinton's election.You have to acknoldge third party candiates cost candiates from major party states In General Election.

Keep bringing up Carter.Obama Is not Carter.A better candiate than Carter ever was.And
better President.Clinton and Bush won reelection.Although with Bush It was more an election after the supreme court stopped the recount.

On this forum I repersente the Democrats where most others are against him on this forum.I will be for Obama while many others here are for romney.

Uh, ok whatever you say...

[pbrower2a]

We need to stop acting like the states that haven't voted Republican since the 1980s provide some sort of structural advantage to Obama. The Democrats have won those states because Republican national margins have been nonexistent to narrow.

So how do you suggest that the GOP can win back the states that the GOP hasn't won since the 1980's? Look at some of the margins of Obama victories in 2008:


California            24%
Massachusetts   27%
New York            26% 
Rhode Island      27%
Connecticut        22%
Vermont             37%
Maryland            25%
Maine                 17%
Michigan             17%
Oregon               16%
Washington        17%
Wisconsin           14%
Minnesota           11%
New Jersey         16%
Pennsylvania      10%

I haven't mentioned Illinois, Hawaii, or Delaware out of fairness as those are arguable home states of the President and Vice-President.

As for those that have voted once for a GOP nominee for President since 1988, Iowa and New Hampshire both went for Obama by 9% and New Mexico went by 15%.  There were no squeakers among those. So the GOP nominee had to win just about everything else to win in 2008 just as Dubya succeeded at in 2000 and 2004 (maybe "with a little help of his friends" like Katharine Harris and Kenneth Blackwell).

Obama had that working for him in the late summer of 2008: 264 electoral votes. Winning all states that hadn't voted for a GOP Presidential nominee in at least twenty years wasn't enough to win, but it put the 2008 GOP nominee in the position in which he couldn't lose anything else. At that point, Nevada was enough to put the final vote into a tiebreaker that the Democrats could expect to win. A bunch of states were close, and Obama needed only one with which to win the election outright: Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Georgia, and Florida. A Presidential campaign reasonably certain of 264 electoral votes had 511 ways in which to win and one in which to lose.  That's mathematics -- not politics. You can argue with my politics any time that you want, but math has no partisan bias. Make the right promises, and you win one of the states you are seeking.

Here's one way of looking at the voting history in a state:

Map:

PRESIDENTIAL VOTING HISTORY

Obama wins (last GOP nominee wins):

near-black: 1972 (MN) or never (DC) Nixon*
deep red: 1984   Reagan
medium red: 1988    GHWB
pink: 2000 or 2004  GWB won once
beige: 2004  GWB won twice

McCain wins (last Democratic win):

light blue: 1992 or 1996 Clinton
blue: 1976  Carter
deep blue: 1964 LBJ  

Note that this is not a prediction of how any state will vote in 2012. For example, Obama has a much better chance of winning North Dakota than of winning Arkansas, about as much chance of winning Missouri as of winning Indiana, and more chance of losing Minnesota than California.

Any state in beige will be a legitimate swing state in 2012, and any state in pale blue is a swing state under the right circumstances. Those in any shade of red (including near-black as well as pink) isn't -- and those states will account for about 260 electoral votes in 2012.  In essence the GOP nominee can win only if getting everything in beige and any shade of blue.