The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[You kip if you want to...]

Virginia (Rasmussen)

50% Approve
49% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Virginia was conducted by Rasmussen Reports September 1, 2009. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2009/virginia/toplines/toplines_virginia_governor_election_september_1_2009

Virginia is now 5% better than the national average ?

That's 'cos Scott Rasmussen is clearly a hack for Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party.

[Tender Branson]

What I also don't get is why Obama is now having the best approvals in VA among Likely voters (50%, Rasmussen), followed by PPP and the worst among Adults (42%, SurveyUSA) ...

[pbrower2a]

Much like 2008!

Uh, duh...it's only 2009.

1996 was much like 1992.

2004 was much like 2000.

Political cultures of the states aren't likely to change much over the next three years.  

[fezzyfestoon]

Yeah, and 2000 was nothing like 1996 and 1992 was nothing like 1988.  Things always change, you CANNOT predict this far out what the map will look like in one let alone three years.

[Rowan]

Democratic party ID advantage down 12 points since January and is now D+5.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122693/Democratic-Advantage-Party-Affiliation-Shrinks.aspx

[Mr.Phips]

The question I have is, will Democrats ever want control of the White House again after this?  They get into power and then everything falls apart for them.  They should probably just let Obama sink in 2012 and then use the time to rebuild. 

[pbrower2a]

Here's how I think America will look with a 52-47 split:



Make Indiana slightly republican and I agree, although i'm assuming that Deleware is a mistake.

Much like 2008!

Delaware is indeed an oversight. Indiana? Obama maxed out in Indiana in 2008 (think of Reagan in Massachusetts in 1980 and 1984), but he's still got the campaign machine, and enough of Indiana is in the Illinois media market.

In any event, Arizona, Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina are the states most likely to flip.  

[You kip if you want to...]

The question I have is, will Democrats ever want control of the White House again after this?  They get into power and then everything falls apart for them.  They should probably just let Obama sink in 2012 and then use the time to rebuild. 

LOL, they're not Republicans 9 months ago.

[You kip if you want to...]

WV: Approval Ratings (MBE 8/27-30)

Mark Blankenship Enterprises
8/27-30/09; 400 registered voters, 4.9% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews

West Virginia

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 45 / 51
Sen. Byrd: 69 / 29
Sen. Rockefeller: 65 / 32
Gov. Manchin: 78 / 19

http://www.markblankenship.com/web/news/Day%201%20Voter%20Survey%20Release%20Final.pdf

[Hash]

So, if I get this right, about 50-55% disapprove of Obama, and the Democrats or Obama are all politically dead and the Democrats won't ever win elections again?

k sure.

[You kip if you want to...]

So, if I get this right, about 50-55% disapprove of Obama, and the Democrats or Obama are all politically dead and the Democrats won't ever win elections again?

k sure.

IT'S TRUE! Glenn Beck had a story about it on his show.

[Eraserhead]

Pew

Approve 52%
Disapprove 37%

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/539.pdf

Ipsos

Approve 56%
Disapprove 40%

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr090902-1tb1.pdf&id=4506

Wow, nice polls.

[You kip if you want to...]

Pew

Approve 52%
Disapprove 37%

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/539.pdf

Ipsos

Approve 56%
Disapprove 40%

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr090902-1tb1.pdf&id=4506

Wow, nice polls.

Yeah, but they're hack polls. They still have higher approvals than disapproval so therefore, they're bias towards liberals and communists who hate America...

(...But yeah, i'm liking them polls, they even out Rasmussen's I guess.)

[Democratic Hawk]

The question I have is, will Democrats ever want control of the White House again after this?  They get into power and then everything falls apart for them.  They should probably just let Obama sink in 2012 and then use the time to rebuild.  

It's but seven months into the Obama presidency. And this president needs to take control of his agenda. Isn't it the job of the president to propose and Congress to dispose? Right now congressional Democrats are proposing and disposing. The party is in grave danger of cannibalizing itself (not that's anything new)

This president was elected, in part, because many voters felt he could transcend the ideological chasm and be something of a consensus-building pragmatist. I accept that "bipartisanship" ain't easy given the recalcitrantly dogmatoid nature of the Republican Party

The ideological 'coalition' which elected Barack Obama was Liberal 19.58%; Moderate 26.40% and Conservative 6.80% (52.78%) And it was support from sufficient enough conservatives in several states that made the difference between a win and a loss. Wouldn't it be more wise to maintain that 'coalition' and expand on it? The president is clearly struggling, approval wise, among Independents, which he carried 52-44

The President needs to leading the Democratic Party - and that means bringing together its disparate congressional factions, so that they can work through their differences and reach a consensus. Maybe, maybe, healthcare reform wouldn't have fallen into such disarray. That only helps the opposition. If there is one thing the Democratic Party is good at, it's scoring own goals . As for taking on 'special interests' and changing how Washington works, that is going to mean taking on some Democratic special interests

If there is one thing that stands in the way of progress - it's the full loaf or no loaf absolutist stance. Why do you think it has been difficult to achieve wider healthcare reform in the past?

There is too much to be done for Congress to be fiddling around like latter day Nero's. And any legislation has to, just has to, deliver on its objectives. Right now, the stimulus is perceived of, at best, as having fallen short of its goals - and there again more proposing and disposing from Congress. If the economy was back on track, healthcare and energy reform would be an easier sell

The thing is much of what Obama wants to accomplish seems big on the long-term ("investment") but small in the short-term. Obama's "investment" strategy makes sense to some, but it may not to others

[SenatorShadowLands]

What is this Arizona is very likely to flip farce? I know the favorite son effect blah blah blah occurred in 08 but does anyone remember AZ has voted GOP in every election (excluding 96) since 1952, both Senators are Republicans (Kyl being one of the MOST conservative in the Senate and McCain is moving sharply to the right as well) and the GOP controls the Governor's Mansion and BOTH houses of the State Legislature and have controlled all those marbles for some time. Arizona is bright red despite Clinton being able to take it once in a 3 way race.

[Smash255]

What is this Arizona is very likely to flip farce? I know the favorite son effect blah blah blah occurred in 08 but does anyone remember AZ has voted GOP in every election (excluding 96) since 1952, both Senators are Republicans (Kyl being one of the MOST conservative in the Senate and McCain is moving sharply to the right as well) and the GOP controls the Governor's Mansion and BOTH houses of the State Legislature and have controlled all those marbles for some time. Arizona is bright red despite Clinton being able to take it once in a 3 way race.

Jan Brewer was NOT elected to be Governor of Arizona.  She was elected to be Sec of State and took over the Governor's mansion when Democrat Janet Naplitano (who was first elected in the strong GOP year of 2002) resigned to take the Sec of  Homeland Security position within the Obama admin.

I'm not suggesting Arizona will flip, though no more home state advantage + continued GOP problems with the growing Hispanic vote could make it much more competitive than it was.

[SenatorShadowLands]

What is this Arizona is very likely to flip farce? I know the favorite son effect blah blah blah occurred in 08 but does anyone remember AZ has voted GOP in every election (excluding 96) since 1952, both Senators are Republicans (Kyl being one of the MOST conservative in the Senate and McCain is moving sharply to the right as well) and the GOP controls the Governor's Mansion and BOTH houses of the State Legislature and have controlled all those marbles for some time. Arizona is bright red despite Clinton being able to take it once in a 3 way race.

Jan Brewer was NOT elected to be Governor of Arizona.  She was elected to be Sec of State and took over the Governor's mansion when Democrat Janet Naplitano (who was first elected in the strong GOP year of 2002) resigned to take the Sec of  Homeland Security position within the Obama admin.

I'm not suggesting Arizona will flip, though no more home state advantage + continued GOP problems with the growing Hispanic vote could make it much more competitive than it was.

And within 10 years the GOP will be relegated to 5 white men and the huge mass of minorities and "age wave" voters will ensure that a Liberal Democrat at last wins the final GOP House seat in Utah wiping out the GOP forever. Yawn. And I didn't seriously think I'd have to reitirate the fact that Brewer hasn't been elected Governor yet but is the pack of nobodies the Dems are putting up against her very likely to defeat her or whoever the GOP nominates?

[Lief 🐋]

Well, with his approvals only slightly above 50%, I guess it's time Obama resign and allow Mitt Romney to become President. You win this round, Republicans!

[Dan the Roman]

What is this Arizona is very likely to flip farce? I know the favorite son effect blah blah blah occurred in 08 but does anyone remember AZ has voted GOP in every election (excluding 96) since 1952, both Senators are Republicans (Kyl being one of the MOST conservative in the Senate and McCain is moving sharply to the right as well) and the GOP controls the Governor's Mansion and BOTH houses of the State Legislature and have controlled all those marbles for some time. Arizona is bright red despite Clinton being able to take it once in a 3 way race.

Jan Brewer was NOT elected to be Governor of Arizona.  She was elected to be Sec of State and took over the Governor's mansion when Democrat Janet Naplitano (who was first elected in the strong GOP year of 2002) resigned to take the Sec of  Homeland Security position within the Obama admin.

I'm not suggesting Arizona will flip, though no more home state advantage + continued GOP problems with the growing Hispanic vote could make it much more competitive than it was.

And within 10 years the GOP will be relegated to 5 white men and the huge mass of minorities and "age wave" voters will ensure that a Liberal Democrat at last wins the final GOP House seat in Utah wiping out the GOP forever. Yawn. And I didn't seriously think I'd have to reitirate the fact that Brewer hasn't been elected Governor yet but is the pack of nobodies the Dems are putting up against her very likely to defeat her or whoever the GOP nominates?

Any name picked randomly from the phonebook would probably beat Brewer. Luckily for the GOP, that is true of the primary as well as the general. She is unlikely to be the Republican nominee.

[Democratic Hawk]

(Kyl being one of the MOST conservative in the Senate and McCain is moving sharply to the right as well)

John McCain does whatever best serves John McCain

[Democratic Hawk]

Democratic party ID advantage down 12 points since January and is now D+5.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122693/Democratic-Advantage-Party-Affiliation-Shrinks.aspx

Maybe Republicans are coming home now that George W Bush is out of the way. I miss Bush

Seemingly the moderate conservative Democrat that was Carl Hayden is a new recruit. He's sporting a big blue R-AZ avatar. Wonder if he's mounting a primary challenge to McVain

[pbrower2a]

What is this Arizona is very likely to flip farce? I know the favorite son effect blah blah blah occurred in 08 but does anyone remember AZ has voted GOP in every election (excluding 96) since 1952, both Senators are Republicans (Kyl being one of the MOST conservative in the Senate and McCain is moving sharply to the right as well) and the GOP controls the Governor's Mansion and BOTH houses of the State Legislature and have controlled all those marbles for some time. Arizona is bright red despite Clinton being able to take it once in a 3 way race.

Arkansas has two Democratic Senators, and Obama lost it by 20 points. Go figure. Obama could easily lose Arkansas by 30 points in 2012 if Mike Huckabee is the GOP nominee.

If I were to tell you that I believed that John Thune would probably win South Dakota by about a 20% margin in in 2012 as the GOP Presidential nominee or that the GOP would do 5% with him as VP nominee instead of someone else, would you consider that preposterous?

It's not farce. John McCain won the state by 8.5%. A favorite son typically has about a 10% advantage in a state over a non-Favorite Son.  If the GOP had run someone else, then the state would have been a legitimate battleground state. A politician respected within his own state has an obvious advantage over someone from outside. That politician already has a campaign network in place that he can easily turn to winning that State's electoral votes and has a well-known record, and local media know the candidate very well. Station managers are tempted to tout the Favorite Son in news stories.

Take a good look at Texas. Obama had no real chance to win Texas ... little more than did John Kerry. George W. Bush absolutely crushed Kerry in Texas (61-38) in roughly a 50-50 election; McCain beat Obama in Texas roughly 55-44. That is a swing of twelve points; that is huge. McCain did well in Texas, but not as well as someone who has real connections to the state. A twelve-point swing in Arizona even in a 50-50 election  makes Arizona a 50-50 state.

The effect is so strong that it works even for losers. In 1972, Senator George McGovern's home state South Dakota gave him 45% of the vote. Sure, he lost South Dakota and 47 other states... but he did better in South Dakota than in some states that were more decidedly liberal in their politics -- including Iowa, Wisconsin,  Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. McGovern was well respected in South Dakota as a war hero and on farm issues... and he was absolutely crushed in North Dakota (36%) and Nebraska (29%) that year. Do you think either North Dakota or Nebraska greatly different from South Dakota?

In a close election? Look at 1976. Gerald Ford, who had never gone beyond the House of Representatives, won Michigan 52-47 while losing Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York -- states generally understood to be politically similar to Michigan -- to Jimmy Carter, someone not from the Northeastern quadrant of the United States.  

(OK, Obama actually did better in 2008 in Massachusetts than did John Kerry did in 2004... which may say much about John Kerry and Barack Obama. But that's rare).  

I can make a concession on Arizona: if Senator John Kyl is the GOP nominee for President, then he will win Arizona. VP nominee? He could swing the state in a close election.

[Tender Branson]

WV: Approval Ratings (MBE 8/27-30)

Mark Blankenship Enterprises
8/27-30/09; 400 registered voters, 4.9% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews

West Virginia

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 45 / 51
Sen. Byrd: 69 / 29
Sen. Rockefeller: 65 / 32
Gov. Manchin: 78 / 19

http://www.markblankenship.com/web/news/Day%201%20Voter%20Survey%20Release%20Final.pdf

Page 149

Anyway, "good" numbers for West Virginia.

[Tender Branson]

Pennsylvania (Franklin & Marshall College)

47% Excellent/Good
53% Fair/Poor

Most people — 55 percent — have a favorable view of Obama, about the same as in February, shortly after his inauguration.

The poll of 643 adults, conducted from Aug. 25-31, has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.9 percentage points.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_641271.html

[SenatorShadowLands]

Quote foulup here, sorry about that. This reply is for pbrower.

Arkansas has two Democratic Senators, and Obama lost it by 20 points. Go figure. Obama could easily lose Arkansas by 30 points in 2012 if Mike Huckabee is the GOP nominee.

If I were to tell you that I believed that John Thune would probably win South Dakota by about a 20% margin in in 2012 as the GOP Presidential nominee or that the GOP would do 5% with him as VP nominee instead of someone else, would you consider that preposterous?

It's not farce. John McCain won the state by 8.5%. A favorite son typically has about a 10% advantage in a state over a non-Favorite Son.  If the GOP had run someone else, then the state would have been a legitimate battleground state. A politician respected within his own state has an obvious advantage over someone from outside. That politician already has a campaign network in place that he can easily turn to winning that State's electoral votes and has a well-known record, and local media know the candidate very well. Station managers are tempted to tout the Favorite Son in news stories.

Take a good look at Texas. Obama had no real chance to win Texas ... little more than did John Kerry. George W. Bush absolutely crushed Kerry in Texas (61-38) in roughly a 50-50 election; McCain beat Obama in Texas roughly 55-44. That is a swing of twelve points; that is huge. McCain did well in Texas, but not as well as someone who has real connections to the state. A twelve-point swing in Arizona even in a 50-50 election  makes Arizona a 50-50 state.

The effect is so strong that it works even for losers. In 1972, Senator George McGovern's home state South Dakota gave him 45% of the vote. Sure, he lost South Dakota and 47 other states... but he did better in South Dakota than in some states that were more decidedly liberal in their politics -- including Iowa, Wisconsin,  Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. McGovern was well respected in South Dakota as a war hero and on farm issues... and he was absolutely crushed in North Dakota (36%) and Nebraska (29%) that year. Do you think either North Dakota or Nebraska greatly different from South Dakota?

In a close election? Look at 1976. Gerald Ford, who had never gone beyond the House of Representatives, won Michigan 52-47 while losing Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York -- states generally understood to be politically similar to Michigan -- to Jimmy Carter, someone not from the Northeastern quadrant of the United States.  

(OK, Obama actually did better in 2008 in Massachusetts than did John Kerry did in 2004... which may say much about John Kerry and Barack Obama. But that's rare).  

I can make a concession on Arizona: if Senator John Kyl is the GOP nominee for President, then he will win Arizona. VP nominee? He could swing the state in a close election.


[/quote]

Arkansas has a nasty habit of voting Democrat at the state level "cuz my daddy did and his daddy did etc etc etc" it has nothing to do with pure ideology.

Arizona's voters have demonstrated a loyalty to the GOP at all levels of the government consistently. The 2008 vote is muddied by the fact that so many areas broke with the GOP that normally vote for it. Ignoring the way people voted in one cycle and then running in and saying there is a massive "favorite son" effect and next time the state will flip after 50 years for absolutely no reason is absurd.

I'm not denying there IS a favorite son factor but having it be absent doesn't mean a 50 year or 20 or 30 or whatever voting streak will change.

Obama won Virginia and North Carolina and Iowa and Indiana despite being a liberal Northern Democrat what does that have to do with Gerald Ford winning Michigan while Carter managed to win other states that weren't part of his background?