The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:24:44 AM
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 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 58
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1205297 times)
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #200 on: August 18, 2009, 12:35:46 PM »

At this point, I think Obama's approval is somewhere in between Rasmussen and Gallup, tilting a little bit to Gallup....say, around Obama+7

Obama +7 (52-45)  is very close to the result of Election  2008. That's about 370 EV with the regional polarization of voting patterns that we now have.

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #201 on: August 18, 2009, 01:02:33 PM »

At this point, I think Obama's approval is somewhere in between Rasmussen and Gallup, tilting a little bit to Gallup....say, around Obama+7

Obama +7 (52-45)  is very close to the result of Election  2008. That's about 370 EV with the regional polarization of voting patterns that we now have.





Bush Approval Rating in 2004 Exit Poll:

Approve - 53%
Disapprove - 46%

Election Result:

Bush - 51% (286 ECV's)
Kerry - 48% (251 ECV's)

Well within the margin of error. So was a near 50-50 split.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #202 on: August 19, 2009, 02:03:04 PM »
« Edited: August 19, 2009, 05:37:27 PM by pbrower2a »



New poll for Colorado, but it changes nothing except to show that polling groups still pay attention to one of the states that decided the 2008 election.

Indiana, Nevada, Montana, and Arizona would be interesting, too.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #203 on: August 19, 2009, 08:13:31 PM »

You all are idiots if you think current polls are in any way indicative of what the political climate will be like by November of 2012.

The current polls at most say what the political situation is on the day of the poll. There will be history made before November 2012 -- and there will be politics. Some people will make big blunders, and some will capitalize from them. Strong political skills and favorable events will give Obama a sure re-election in 2012. Big stumbles on his part -- stumbles that he can't rebound from in time -- will ensure his defeat. It's that simple.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #204 on: August 20, 2009, 05:40:14 AM »

Alabama (Capital Survey Research Center)Sad

50% Very/somewhat satisfied with Obama's job performance
46% Very/somewhat dissatisfied with Obama's job performance

The CSRC poll indicates 47 percent of likely voters statewide are opposed to President Obama's efforts to reform the nation's health care system while 43 percent support the proposed measure. The remaining 10 percent of those surveyed don't know where they stand.

Answers to the CSRC questions were divided along party and racial lines. Approximately 97 percent of black voters and 88 percent of Democrats support Obama's efforts to reform health care. Only 34 percent of white voters and 19 percent of Republicans support the proposal.

The poll of 887 registered voters, which was taken on Aug. 12, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percent.

http://www.thedailysentinel.com/story.lasso?ewcd=846fb6ea77aa49e8

Probably a biased poll, as it is taken by a union (Alabama Educational Association). It's intriguing nonetheless. Alabama goes to Obama only in a 45-state landslide. The state was an early call for John McCain in 2008, Obama losing it by a 60-38 margin. Should Obama lose Alabama by 'only' about a 55-45 margin, then he surely picks up Georgia and South Carolina and makes Tennessee, Kentucky, and Mississippi very close. Such suggests roughly a 40-state landslide.

Such is the material of political dreams.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #205 on: August 20, 2009, 05:50:30 AM »


A poll is a poll.



Logically I would trade Alabama for Florida and North Carolina and maybe Georgia, but a union-commissioned poll in Alabama isn't strong enough to suggest some "great new reality". Maybe there haven't been enough Town Hall sessions in Alabama or other core Southern States to be disrupted to turn them into political theater for the Hard Right.

Mississippi, anyone? Polls for South Carolina and Tennessee are quite stale, too.

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #206 on: August 20, 2009, 06:23:05 AM »

Florida adjusted with a non-junk poll.





Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #207 on: August 20, 2009, 08:08:07 AM »

Florida adjusted with a non-junk poll.


Rassy isn't a junk poll, but whatever.

The reference was to the poll in Alabama commissioned by a teachers' union.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #208 on: August 21, 2009, 01:31:05 PM »

Zogby (INTERNET POLL)Sad

45% Approve
51% Disapprove

43% Excellent/Good
56% Fair/Poor

While this latest poll shows Democrats continue to overwhelmingly approve of Obama's job performance (84%), just 6% of Republicans say the same. Most independents (59%) now disapprove of the job the President is doing.

The Zogby Interactive survey of 2,530 likely voters nationwide was conducted Aug. 18-20, 2009, and carries a margin of error of +/- 2.0 percentage points.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1734

A reminder: interactive polls of any kind are unreliable.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #209 on: August 21, 2009, 03:00:37 PM »

I think it might be potentially a good thing for obama's presidency that his poll numbers have fallen back down to earth, it might keep  him from  getting a big head about his presidency hopefully it stop him from believing all the hype about him being the next FDR, JFK and Democratic Reagan all rolled into one and he can just get back worrying about effective manger of the country.

 a classic example of this would be when Clinton tanked in 1994, the Conservatives over reached and then Clinton came back stronger then ever in 1996.   
 
just something to ponder.


Right. President Obama  has discovered to his surprise that the GOP/Hard Right neither rolls over and plays dead nor plays by Queensbury rules. His election and later events have not convinced those who voted against him that he is a suitable President.  Special interests consider any change in the so-called American way of delivering and paying for health care a threat unless such guarantees higher profits. Just because he likes a civil debate and rational discussion of the issues that allows a workable compromise does not mean that the Other Side wants such. The Other Side might want instead to turn up the invective as its best chance to undo the "damage" of the 2008 election.  
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #210 on: August 21, 2009, 04:04:18 PM »

Twitters about the PPP Arkansas poll, currently in the field:

"Ark. poll is looking brutal for Democrats, but Mike Beebe still looks to have the highest approval of anyone we've polled on nationally this year.

Arkansas is definitely the birtherest state to date...it's been fun but I think we'll stop asking about it after this poll

Public Policy Polling (D) is currently in the field in the state that gave us Bill Clinton, and their survey includes this question: "Between Rush Limbaugh and Barack Obama, who do you think has the better vision for America?"

So far, PPP communications director Tom Jensen tells me, Limbaugh is winning by about ten points. The numbers could potentially narrow between now and when the survey is finished over the weekend, but Jensen is sure that Limbaugh will end up winning."


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/early-poll-data-arkansas-likes-limbaugh-more-than-obama.php

http://twitter.com/ppppolls

BAHAHAHAHA! That's hilarious!

The sad thing is, a pollster asked that question in Oklahoma a couple of months ago, and they actually favored Limbaugh. Seriously.

Oklahoma -- the first Fascist state on American soil.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #211 on: August 21, 2009, 06:17:55 PM »

Montana(Research 2000)

Favorable 44%
Unfavorable 52%

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2009/8/19/MT/347

I'd think that his approval would be slightly under his favorables, so around 40% or so. No way in hell he carries MT in 2012 like pbrower has been preaching for the past 6 months.

Map updated (Montana finally polled):



It's not hugely off from 2008, and I welcome the poll as it addresses an "interesting" state for predictions of 2012. Maryland, Vermont, Nebraska, and Alaska aren't "interesting".

I am not convinced that Montana is unwinnable for Obama; it depends upon who his opponent is.

This is very different from the situation in Pennsylvania or Texas.  My argument for Montana being a likely pickup for Obama is that it was close enough in 2008  for the age wave to flip the state in 2012. I have yet to be convinced of any spuriousness of an age wave in American politics. The age wave will at most flip two states -- Missouri and Montana.  The Age Wave cannot operate in reverse anywhere in America. Should Obama not do so well in 2012 as in 2008, then such will reflect that either young adults have become less liberal in their leaning than they were in 2008 or that the GOP nominee has overpowered the Age Wave by attracting older voters away from Obama.

It is possible for the GOP to undo or counteract some of the effects of the Age Wave in which younger voters enter the electorate and older, more conservative ones exit. Biological reality of aging is beyond refutation. To get their nominee elected the GOP must overpower the Age Wave somehow. How? Your guess is as good as mine. Voting practices by age are generally well known.

The electorate in all states will be different in 2012 from what it was in 2008. It will not vote exactly the same, or differ only by such a feature as the "Age Wave". There will be a Favorite Son effect in at least one state in favor of the Republican, and there will be hot economic issues. Add to that, Obama will have shown whether he is an effective and desirable President who possesses a vision of a new America that enough people share or he will be a failure. Spectacular success or failure will overpower any Age Wave.

My model of an effective Obama Presidency is that he wins everything that he won in 2008 and adds Missouri and Montana due to the Age Wave and Arizona due to the disappearance of John McCain as a Favorite Son. A more effective Presidency suggests that he will win more states -- let us say Georgia, and a less-effective one that he loses such a state as North Carolina or Indiana. 


 






Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #212 on: August 21, 2009, 08:15:16 PM »

This is a copy of a post that I put in another thread. It shows the only trend that I consider realistic. It's the Age Wave, and if you have familiarity with the political values of people who will be voting for the first time in 2012, including the political culture  that they know best and have responded to as one can reasonably expect.

Here's one trend to watch:

The youngest voters from 2004-2008

State       2004 Margin      2008 Margin            Swing

The Mid-Atlantic

PA            60-39 Kerry       66-34 Obama          D + 6
DE           54-45 Kerry        71-25 Obama         D + 17
NY           72-25 Kerry         76-21 Obama        D + 4
NJ            64-35 Kerry        67-32 Obama         D + 3
MD           62-35 Kerry       70-26 Obama          D + 8
DC           90-8 Kerry       95-5 Obama              D + 5

New England

CT            70-29 Kerry       79-18 Obama      D + 9
ME            50-48 Bush       67-30 Obama      D + 19
NH            57-43 Kerry       61-37 Obama      D + 4
VT            71-27 Kerry       81-18 Obama      D + 10
MA           72-26 Kerry       78-20 Obama      D + 6
RI             68-30 Kerry       68-25 Obama      D + 0

The Midwest

OH           56-42 Kerry       61-38 Obama              D + 5
IN            52-47 Bush        63-35 Obama              D + 16
MO           51-48 Kerry        59-39 Obama             D + 8
IA              53-46 Kerry        63-34 Obama            D + 10
MI             55-43 Kerry         68-29 Obama            D + 13
MN           57-41 Kerry         66-32 Obama            D + 9
WI            57-41 Kerry         64-35 Obama            D + 7
IL             64-35 Kerry        71-27 Obama    D + 7

The Coastal South

VA             54-46 Kerry       63-34 Obama              D + 9
NC             56-43 Kerry       74-26 Obama              D + 18
SC             51-48 Bush        57-42 Obama             D + 9
GA             52-47 Bush        51-48 McCain             D + 1
FL              58-41 Kerry        61-37 Obama             D + 3

The Deep and Inland South

AL            57-41 Bush         51-49 Obama           D + 10
MS           63-37 Kerry         56-43 Obama           R + 6
TN            53-46 Bush         59-40 Obama           D + 13
KY           54-45 Bush          51-48 Obama           D + 6
WV          52-48 Bush         50-50 Tie      D + 2
AR           51-47 Bush         49-49 Tie      D + 2
LA            53-45 Bush         49-48 McCain   D + 4 (but won 18-24 by 53-45)
TX            59-41 Bush         54-45 Obama   D + 13

The Plains States

KS           55-44 Bush          51-47 Obama   D + 7
ND           68-32 Bush         51-47 Obama   D + 19
SD           55-43 Bush         50-48 Obama   D + 7
NE           60-38 Bush         54-43 Obama   D + 16
OK           62-38 Bush         60-40 McCain   D + 2

The Rockies and the Southwest

AZ            50-48 Bush        52-48 Obama            D + 4
NV            56-42 Kerry        70-29 Obama           D + 14
NM           50-49 Bush         77-21 Obama           D + 27
CO           51-47 Kerry         No result                  N/A
UT            77-18 Bush         62-33 McCain           D + 15
WY          72-25 Bush         63-35 McCain            D + 10
MT            52-43 Bush        61-37 Obama            D + 18
ID            65-35 Bush        56-42 McCain              D + 7

The West

CA           58-39 Kerry         76-23 Obama            D + 18 (80% of 18-24 for Obama)
OR           62-37 Kerry          No result                 N/A
WA          50-47 Kerry          No result                 N/A
AK            59-37 Bush         61-37 Bush               R + 2
HI             61-39 Kerry         82-18 Obama            D + 21



Figure that this bloc of voters will get larger in 2012 (it will be under 35 instead of under 30) and that it will be no less liberal-leaning by then. I notice that the youngest voters vote much more Democratic than older voters in practically every state.

The significance? Younger voters will supplant older voters in the electorate as older ones die or go senile and no longer vote. If you figure that the voters in a state like Virginia (which voted about 53-46 for Obama) had young voters going 63-34 for Obama.  So the youngest 16 years of voters in Virginia voted 63-34 for Obama, then the rest of the electorate voted  about 50-50 for Obama.

The math:

(1/4)x(63%) + (3/4) N = 53%

N =49.7%.

Next time with nothing more than the appearance of new young voters and the disappearance of older voters to death or senility, (round up 49.7% to 50%)

(20/64) x 63% + (44/64) x 50% = 54.1%

With no other change than new voters supplanting older voters, such suggests that Obama will win Virginia about 54-44-2.   That's roughly a 1.5% change in favor of Obama without doing much.

With someone else's guess on how Congressional seats will be re-apportioned and that the Favorite Son effect will disappear from Arizona (unless Senator John Kyl runs, which I think unlikely). This assumes that Obama will face an opponent as strong as John McCain was in 2008 (which itself is a huge assumption) :







Overpowering Obama win (20%+)
Strong Obama win (10-20%)
Modest Obama win (5-10%)
Weak Obama win (under 5%)
Weak GOP win (under 5%)
Modest GOP win (5-10%)
Strong GOP win (10%-20%)
Overpowering GOP win (20%+)
Nebraska: splits its electoral votes



(Nebraska splits its electoral votes, and the map fails to show it):

NE-01 is "Modest GOP"
NE-02 is "Weak Obama"
NE-03 is "Overwhelming GOP"
the state at large is "Strong GOP"


Obama wins of 2008 are solidified everywhere, and many viewers will be turning channels as the suspense fails to develop. 

Young voters in Georgia are not particularly liberal -- probably many of them are military, and the military tends to attract conservative-leaning young adults. Georgia, close as it was for Obama in 2008, will not go for him.  Older voters in the Dakotas aren't as conservative as those in Kansas, but younger voters in the Dakotas are too close to 50-50 to swing either state. Maybe farm-and-ranch life is good for ensuring that kids really are chips off the old block, so to speak, even in politics. 


 

This is before other things happen -- like shifts in regional loyalties, unusually poor or good performance by the President, diplomatic successes and failures, change in the political culture for unpredictable reasons,  partisan bickering, severe gaps or their consistent absence, the presence or absence of a strong GOP candidate (does anyone really know Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee well as a politician?), and of course economic realities. We don't know how those will break.

Some things will be much the same in 2012 as in 2008: George W. Bush, the last Republican President that anyone will know in 2012, will be no less or more beloved (ahem!) than he was in 2008. The campaign apparatus that Barack Obama established in 2008 will be up and running in 2012 and it will be as effective as it was in 2008.  Favorite son effects are real, but they can be reversed as well as established -- which explains how I have Arizona as a likely Obama pickup.

This model suggests that Obama will solidify the Blue Firewall with such states as Virginia, Iowa, and New Hampshire as double-digit victories. Colorado, perhaps -- except that I lack the data, so I can't suggest that Obama will win the state by any more than he did in 2008.

It's a predictive model based on such little information as is available now. Polls will go up and down. Those for Harry Truman went up with every military advance by our side in the Korean War and went down with ever retreat by our side. How some legislation goes in 2009 may have lesser effects upon day-to-day polling.

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #213 on: August 23, 2009, 10:04:15 AM »
« Edited: August 23, 2009, 01:36:08 PM by pbrower2a »

Nevada again:



Nevada caught everyone by surprise in Election 2008. The state seems to have been drifting D because of its urbanization and the appearance of a large number of Hispanic voters.  The economic meltdown of 2008 hit Nevada hard and may have been the difference between a bare Obama victory and a huge one -- of course at the worst possible time for a Republican in Nevada since at least 1964.  The 2008 results suggested that Nevada had become a firm part of the Blue Firewall even if it wasn't quite so.

The change from a previous poll to this one is itself subtle even if the color change isn't.  Nevada is probably "Shaky Democrat", and the time for deciding whether Nevada is other than a swing state will be November 2010, when a Governorship (Republican incumbent) and perhaps a Senate seat (if John Ensign has had to vacate it after a sex scandal and possible obstruction of justice) will be up for grabs. 

Ensign won Nevada firmly in 2006 -- but I don't think that he could have won re-election in 2008 even before the sex scandal broke. After the sex scandal... it apparently didn't fall under the "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" rule.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #214 on: August 23, 2009, 02:45:16 PM »

So you said that Obama won the 18-29 vote in MT by a 61-37. Then why is his favorables with them only 51-47? Not much of an "age wave" if you ask me.

He's not actively campaigning right now. The efficient and effective election machine that he had in operation in 2008 is in mothballs. Don't worry; it will be up and running, perhaps even before the Republicans start their knock-down, drag-out in New Hampshire. There are no political campaign ads. In a knock-down, drag-out primary struggle the opposing sides usually supply grist for the campaign apparatus of the incumbent.

I predict that Obama will have no meaningful primary challenge. It will be likely light-weight Dennis Kucinich and some heavy-handed acolyte of Lyndon LaRouche. Who runs will determine what sort of advertising and campaign messages will be out, as well as the locations of the ads. The autumn of 2008 will be shown as a bad time for America except for one thing. No, it's not the Philadelphia Phillies winning the World Series, which wasn't so delightful in Florida.

Without a meaningful primary challenge and with sharp competition within the other party's primaries, Obama will have a head start in winning re-election against a challenger. Is that unfair? No. That's just how American politics operates, and it shows how a mediocre-to-good incumbent President is all-but-invincible in a campaign for re-election. You can count on the Obama campaign exploiting any weakness of the opponent, just as in 2008, and pulling back only when going further will seem like overkill. Barack Obama will have control of official travels, and they will tend to go to swing states (possible exception: natural disasters).




Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #215 on: August 24, 2009, 06:25:36 AM »

So you said that Obama won the 18-29 vote in MT by a 61-37. Then why is his favorables with them only 51-47? Not much of an "age wave" if you ask me.

He's not actively campaigning right now. The efficient and effective election machine that he had in operation in 2008 is in mothballs. Don't worry; it will be up and running, perhaps even before the Republicans start their knock-down, drag-out in New Hampshire. There are no political campaign ads. In a knock-down, drag-out primary struggle the opposing sides usually supply grist for the campaign apparatus of the incumbent.

I predict that Obama will have no meaningful primary challenge. It will be likely light-weight Dennis Kucinich and some heavy-handed acolyte of Lyndon LaRouche. Who runs will determine what sort of advertising and campaign messages will be out, as well as the locations of the ads. The autumn of 2008 will be shown as a bad time for America except for one thing. No, it's not the Philadelphia Phillies winning the World Series, which wasn't so delightful in Florida.

Without a meaningful primary challenge and with sharp competition within the other party's primaries, Obama will have a head start in winning re-election against a challenger. Is that unfair? No. That's just how American politics operates, and it shows how a mediocre-to-good incumbent President is all-but-invincible in a campaign for re-election. You can count on the Obama campaign exploiting any weakness of the opponent, just as in 2008, and pulling back only when going further will seem like overkill. Barack Obama will have control of official travels, and they will tend to go to swing states (possible exception: natural disasters).
I think Hillary could be a surprise nominee - if she smells blood, also if this healthcare thing doesn't go, dont think she won't be sniffing up the progressive members to see if they will lend her a hand.

Primary challenges to an incumbent President happen with a weakened incumbent. So it was with Ted Kennedy against Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Ronald Reagan against  Gerald Ford in 1976. Such challenges bode ill for the incumbent's party in the general election because they offer grist for an organized and unified opponent. Ford was defeated in 1976; Carter was defeated in 1980.

Then there was 1968, when the incumbent with a strong record on everything except for a war gone awry faced challenges from a peace faction and the racist campaign of George Wallace. The incumbent President chose not to run for re-election, and Richard Nixon crushed the VP.

Do I think intra-party challenges wrong? Hardly. It's too bad that there wasn't one in 2004 against what some consider the worst President in American history. McCain? Lugar? Voinovich?  Specter? Collins? Even someone from the Hard Right -- Coburn, Santorum,  or DeMint -- could have chosen to challenge the "good" with the "perfect" (abortion ban, crackdown on homosexuality, acceleration of the drug war, attempt to "Christianize" American politics, and a dismantling of the welfare state in favor of a fascist economy).

Obama knows well enough to put potential rivals in responsible positions in which they can achieve everything other than establishing a political base. That's the "Team of Rivals" approach. After eight years, the maximum time for his Presidency, what happens is no longer his concern; his personal role in governing America will be over.

 
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #216 on: August 24, 2009, 09:14:20 AM »

The thing about 18-29 year olds, and other groups as well, is that their is no opponent to compare Obama too. When there is a Republican nominee, social issues will drive younger voters to cast ballots for the Democrats as they did for Kerry.

I think they would support Gingrich or Gary Johnson.

Gingrich really is a Hard Right social "conservative" who would turn off American young adults -- just like Palin in that respect.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #217 on: August 24, 2009, 01:28:58 PM »

"Likely voters, again, MA and MI"


Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #218 on: August 25, 2009, 04:49:41 PM »

Arkansas:


Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #219 on: August 26, 2009, 11:20:50 AM »


Against opponents most likely to run against him (page 12 of the 13-page PDF in the report):


Obama      47
Romney     38


Obama      48
Huckabee  38

Obama      52
Gingrich     34

Obama      53
Palin          34

Split the difference that falls short of 100% as the sum of support 3/2 R/D (a cautious division), and assume that the remainder would go for third-party candidates, and you get:

Obama     53
Romney    47

Obama     52
Huckabee 46

Which are about what Obama did in 2008 anyway. Huckabee and Romney have different patterns of nationwide support, resulting in different maps of electoral success or failure.

Palin and Gingrich are apparent jokes:

Obama    56
Gingrich   42

Obama     57
Palin        42

which would be a victory on roughly the scale of Eisenhower in 1956 for Obama against either.

The health care mess has been sapping support for Obama without creating support for Senate and Congressional Republicans. If Obama is seen as ineffective in getting health care reform, his Republican opponents get fault, too, for failure to do what is usually expected of the "loyal opposition" -- not so much to roll over and play dead, but instead to smooth the edges of the big programs that the majority promotes.

The Republicans don't have control of any economic issue other than taxes, and they will be in huge trouble if they try to defend the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that seem to have been approved very high in the prior administration.

People may have their doubts about Obama, but they are developing little confidence in the GOP. Core support of the GOP will be insufficient for keeping the number of House and Senates that it now has, let alone ousting Obama in 2012.




Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #220 on: August 26, 2009, 05:20:46 PM »
« Edited: August 26, 2009, 05:34:05 PM by pbrower2a »

The Georgia poll has some independence; the Florida poll, commissioned by a political party, has none. (I also reject interactive polls). Nebraska polled for the first time statewide (doesn't affect NE-02, Greater Omaha). I suspect that Obama is around 70% disapproval in NE-03, I'm guessing on NE-01 (near the state average) and NE-02.



Obama may be paying a price for the failure of his health care reform to take hold... but the GOP seems to be gaining no lasting political capital from it so far; look at the approval ratings for Obama against imaginable candidates. Remember: a campaign of confusion is less likely to create long-term support (the GOP needs this more than anything else) than is offering a valid alternative.  The GOP has taken a high-risk strategy -- one that can still blow up badly.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #221 on: August 26, 2009, 10:48:04 PM »

Pbrower, what's up with Utah and Alabama?

Utah? Really-old poll. Alabama? Suspicious poll because it is commissioned by an independent (but partisan) group -- a teachers' union. For Alabama, a poll is a poll, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it change in a few days.

South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee -- likewise.

I find it hard to believe that Obama support can be 60% in Indiana or Iowa -- those polls are old. I don't replace an old poll with guesswork.

 
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #222 on: August 27, 2009, 12:24:12 AM »

Wow, I'm surprised to see that nobody here has thrown out the idea of a "Kennedy bump" yet...

I'm not sure, but maybe it will help increase support for health care reform by a couple of percentage points.

The death of Teddy Kennedy loses one reliable Democratic vote for a few weeks at the least. That's two percentage points in the Senate.

That said, should the Democrats pass a health care reform bill, then the GOP leadership loses (for at least a while) an issue  upon which to carp. Political life gets quiet again -- with lots of current Republicans having to explain where the "death panels" were in the legislation and other such stuff.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #223 on: August 27, 2009, 08:37:54 AM »

Pbrower, what's up with Utah and Alabama?

Utah? Really-old poll. Alabama? Suspicious poll because it is commissioned by an independent (but partisan) group -- a teachers' union. For Alabama, a poll is a poll, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it change in a few days.

South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee -- likewise.

I find it hard to believe that Obama support can be 60% in Indiana or Iowa -- those polls are old. I don't replace an old poll with guesswork.

 

He's at 56% in Iowa. You just missed the SUSA poll apparently. I know that they were all posted in this thread.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=3fab4706-44e4-498e-b857-5a08b6d5d81b

More than a month ago, and 56% rounds up to 60%.  I see a bigger difference in practice between 52% and 56% than between 56% and 63% in support, so I round up. That also works with negative appraisals; a 56% disapproval suggests that things are not close enough for easy "rectification" as does 63%, more so than 52%. maybe the system would work better with 5% gradations between 50 and 70% and a really-dark shade for something above that.

Some have criticized me for rounding up because when things were going well for Obama the rounding-up made him look more popular than he is. When things begin to look not so good, this system may exaggerate that. In 2008 Obama quit appearing in a state when it was up 55-45 one way or another... when it was up 55-45 for him because further campaigning was going to pile on, and when he was down 55-45 because his efforts weren't going to change things fast enough.   

There will be ups and downs. Does anyone expect the Hard Right to give up? They have the class privilege of the rich to protect and the superstitions of the under-learned to uphold against challenges from liberals and secularists. They were satisfied with Dubya, who gave them what they wanted most even if such alienated everyone else. They may see Obama as a bump on the road after which America will come to its senses and recognize that prosperity depends upon the unrelieved sacrifices of working people (misery creates wealth, doesn't it?) and upon the widespread acceptance of an abortion ban and a Biblical view of physical reality. The Hard Right still has a vision of a Christian and Corporate State, and if the Hard Right can make the new Jimmy Carter or Herbert Hoover out of Barack Obama, then things will be going very well -- maybe not for the rest of us, but surely well for themselves. If they can't get a continuation of their favored sort of politician, then at least they can get a failed liberalism that convinces America that (I hate to use the political f-word) works better, and maybe puts someone with a Dubya-like agenda back in the White House in 2012 and a "reliable" Congress and Senate back in charge -- this time with more power to enforce its well and to get institutional changes.   
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #224 on: August 27, 2009, 01:14:47 PM »

Obama needs to stop his slide quickly.  He has got to get to the Senate and tell Democrats taht they dont have a choice of opposing this. 

How would ramming the healthcare bill through congress help the President's approval ratings when a majority of Americans oppose it?

The choice of methods that the Hard Right is using is itself a huge gamble. The GOP has been losing about as much as Obama has so far. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 58  
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 0.099 seconds with 10 queries.