The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[Mr.Phips]

Florida(Rasmussen)

Approve 42%
Disapprove 57%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_state_toplines/florida/toplines_election_2010_florida_senate_august_17_2009

Based on that approval rating, Obama would lose Florida by about 60%-40% if the election was held today.

I think Florida probably wont go for Obama again in 2012.  Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia were all probably a one time deal for Obama. 

[Mr.Phips]

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. 

[Mr.Phips]

Why weren't these people more vocal back in 2007 or 2008, when Obama's health care plan was first proposed?

Obama had a health care plan in 2007 or 2008?  Actually, Obama has a health care plan now?  Must've missed something.

I'm not going to necessarily brag about what I've said for many years, but it is the truth and gets proven "more truthier" every day.

Health care is to the Democrats what immigration reform is to Republicans - an issue that can be campaigned on, but must never be legislated on, otherwise it ends up destroying you.

This is so mainly because the polls lie.  Everyone says they want "universal health care" but the moment when you get into the specifics as to what is required, the people (and your base) turn against it and you.

I suspect that if Democrats fail on this, they will never attemp it again.  They are not stupid.  They will soon realize that this is a loser issue for them.

[Mr.Phips]

Why weren't these people more vocal back in 2007 or 2008, when Obama's health care plan was first proposed?

Obama had a health care plan in 2007 or 2008?  Actually, Obama has a health care plan now?  Must've missed something.

I'm not going to necessarily brag about what I've said for many years, but it is the truth and gets proven "more truthier" every day.

Health care is to the Democrats what immigration reform is to Republicans - an issue that can be campaigned on, but must never be legislated on, otherwise it ends up destroying you.

This is so mainly because the polls lie.  Everyone says they want "universal health care" but the moment when you get into the specifics as to what is required, the people (and your base) turn against it and you.

Yeah, passing and prtecting Medicare has been a pain for Democrats to run on the last 40 years.

Times were far different back when Medicare was passed.  Republicans didnt work in lockstep as kneejerk opposition to anything a Democratic President supported and there was no corporate media attacking every little thing in the bill.  The days of liberals passing anything substantitive are likely over. 

[Mr.Phips]

Democrats have a serious choice to make.  Will they simply cut Obama off from them much like they did to Carter in 1978 and blur the differences between themselves and Republican on most issues, or will they tie themselves to him, hoping that he recovers? 

[Mr.Phips]

Democrats have a serious choice to make.  Will they simply cut Obama off from them much like they did to Carter in 1978 and blur the differences between themselves and Republican on most issues, or will they tie themselves to him, hoping that he recovers? 

It's still three years to re-election. We don't have to start sweating until after Midterm elections. What approval ratings are this early in a presidential term is quite irrelevant on election day. In September 2001 Bush had 90 % approval, yet he didn't win a landslide re-election.

So yeah, we're tying ourselves to him hoping he recovers. Not a serious or tough choice at all. 

 

The midterm elections are what I am talking about.  If Democrats lose the House in 2010, Obama is basically a dead duck.  He will probably get reelected, but he will run so far to the right that it wont matter. 

[Mr.Phips]

It may also be time for Obama to make an effort to rebuild the Bill Clinton coalition. It is time that he starts appearing in West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and Oklahoma -- yes, Oklahoma with its two fascist Senators -- and telling people in states that rejected him so thoroughly in 2008 what they have to gain from liberalism.  Visiting states that were on the margin in 2008 may not be enough. He surely maxed out in places like Indiana and North Carolina, and he won't be able to count on them in 2012.

Obama has ZERO chance in any of those states you listed with the exception of maybe Texas.

[Mr.Phips]

Does anyone else think that a Dennis Kucinich run is possible?

yes I think him and a blue dog ala Ben Nelson will challenge Obama

If the Democratic Party chooses to cannibalize itself like it did in 1968 and 1980, it would lose the presidency in 2012

Besides isn't a bit early to be writing the president off seven months into his presidency?

On economic and quality of life issues, I've every confidence. He's a Democrat

I think Democrats need to lose the Presidency if they fail on healthcare. 

[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. 

[Mr.Phips]

Um, he is still under 50% on the question, that's not good.

... on his weak spot. He has left responsibility for the legislation to Congress.  Congress did badly. Surely Obama will be judged on other things as well -- like the economy in general.

Congress is far more important than Obama. 

[Mr.Phips]

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

[Mr.Phips]

Arkansas again, and it doesn't look pretty to Democrats even as an average:

Obama could probably get us to 3% unemployment and still lose Arkansas. 

[Mr.Phips]

Of course. New Jersey is about as far away from being a Republican pickoff in a 50-50 election as Kentucky is from being a Democratic pickoff in a 50-50 election.

I don't know where you keep coming up with these total bullshit comparisons.  Kentucky was 23.49% more Republican than the country, New Jersey was 8.26% more Democratic.  Not even close to being comparable.

Going by the 2008 results, New Jersey was four points more Democratic than the nation as a whole and Kentucky 11 points more Republican. 

[Mr.Phips]

Obama's approvals are basically hovering around what the popular vote in the election was. Those who voted for him still approve for the most part though some are probably frustrated with health care. I wonder when one side will start gaining as I cannot see this level of polarization lasting throughout the administration.

We are a very polarized country.  I could definately see this polarization continuing for quite a while. 

[Mr.Phips]

I think Obama will lose Michigan in 2012. 

[Mr.Phips]

I think Obama will lose Michigan in 2012. 

I think you're wrong.

Just look at his approval ratings there.  Its not like the economy in Michigan is suddenly going to be good again in 2012. 

[Mr.Phips]

So according to all the polls gathered up, the modified Obama approval/disapproval should look something like this.

Red for dissapproval higher than approval from 30%-90%
Green for approval higher than disapproval from 30%-90%

Yellow - Tied approval & disapproval

30% - light shade
60% - medium shade
90% - dark shade

The numbers added in are the month the poll was taken.

Net dissapproval in Maryland, DC, and Delaware?

[Mr.Phips]

There is going to be a small bump that is for certain. The problem however is that even though people might know that the President is trying to do his best, he is not doing it well. Therefore, this bump will probably not last long if the economic trend holds. In my opinion, his approval is likely going to enter the thirties and bottom out there by the end of the year. His current economic policies MAY produce another recession, which he will be blamed for, specifically his proposed taxes on the banks. Another stimulus will likely be introduced, which also won't be popular, and possibly will be rejected by the Senate by a narrow margin, due to the 2010 elections. At the same time I would not put it past them to pass a third stimulus, though it could potentially be filibustered.

The year has, in a way, begun well for Obama, but it is likely to get much worse before it gets any better. After 2010, the Republican House, or the Divided Congress, will make Obama's work even more difficult, and instead of blaming Congress, they will continue to blame the President. At that point, his major problem will be appealing to the Left of the Democratic Party, since he will be forced to further moderate his views. While this will help him with independent voters, his already shaky support among the Left will degrade, likely prompting a challenge in the primaries (assuming his approval ratings are still low in the middle of 2011). At this point, there is also the question of whether or not he would even WANT another term, in which case the field is wide open (Biden would be considered too close to Obama, and generally too old to run for the Presidency). Obama will find it really difficult to win reelection with a Republican House, since little can be accomplished without both the approval of the House and the President.

Even in the case of a successful economy, which I doubt, there is the problem of Afghanistan. If the situation degrades regardless of the surge, and the President is not able to follow his timeline.........enough is said. Like how President Bush went down with the War in Iraq, it is likely that President Obama will go down with the War in Afghanistan in this event. I hope that will not be the case, but since the Taliban have a fairly safe base in Warzistan, we will have to see.

In any situation, Obama has a REALLY tough road ahead of him, and his Charisma can only do so much before it, to the voter, appears nothing more than rhetoric.

If Republicans win the House, Obama will be a lock for reelection.  He will be able to pin the blame for the nations problems on the Republican House. 

[Mr.Phips]

p2, liberals always use the cell phone argument, but the fact is that in most polls, democrats outpoll their actual support/margin in elections by 3-4%.  Everyone - not just the young or hispanic has a cell phone now - a republican is just as likely as a democrat to have one.  I don't buy it.

The political situation of November 2012 will be considerably different from what it is now.  Most of us expect Barack Obama to be the Democratic nominee, and few of us can predict who will be the Republican nominee. The electorate on the average will be born four years later than the electorate of 2008. The electorate will be just as old, but it will be less white, and it will have many new voters born between 1990 and 1994 -- and current trends expect that those age groups will be just as Democratic-leaning as those born between 1986 and 1990. There will be an active campaign complete with ads --  content yet undetermined.

As a challenger, President Obama had a strong campaign apparatus; in 2012 he will take that out of mothballs (and he might take it out of mothballs in the late summer to aid any Democratic colleagues then in trouble). That won't be enough to rescue a failed Presidency should he have a poor-to-execrable one, but it will be enough that if he is even modestly successful as President, then he will win. Not one failed to win re-election because he was "too liberal" or "too conservative". I remember what many liberals said of Ronald Reagan in 1982 and 1983 -- one term because he was too "right-wing".

Need I discuss the failures?

1. William Howard Taft. Temperamentally unsuited to the Presidency. He was perfectly fit to be a Chief Justice, though. (The next step for Barack Obama is probably either as a  Justice of the US Supreme Court, membership on the International Court of Justice,  or Secretary-General of the United Nations -- but I think after two full terms as President).

2. Herbert Hoover. Everything that could go wrong in peacetime did go wrong.  America went from bright-and-cheery when he was inaugurated to dreadful. (With Obama the time began as dreadful and ominous, rest of the story to be known by November 2012).

3. Gerald Ford. Got to the Presidency through the back door, having never been elected to any office other than representative. Ford had no idea of how to campaign beyond a Congressional district until too late, and he lost to a weak challenger.  No analogy here.

4. Jimmy Carter.  The weak challenger to Gerald Ford. He accomplished little as President because he was always an outsider who tried to bring Atlanta ways to Washington.  He lost to someone who exuded confidence in his own abilities and presented himself as more moderate than his early reputation.

Obama was and remains very much a political insider, and his political skills look more like those of Ronald Reagan. He has not tried to impose Chicago political ways upon Washington. Carter doesn't look like much of a comparison to Obama.

5. George H. W. Bush. A successor to a successful President, he achieved about everything he wanted to achieve during his Presidency but failed to offer a coherent vision of what he would do in a second term -- nothing but platitudes. This, I think, is now the most likely model for a failure of President Obama to be re-elected.  

If Obama had the political skills that Reagan had, he would have passed healthcare last summer.  Obama not getting healthcare is equivalent to Reagan not getting his big tax cuts in 1981. 

[Mr.Phips]

I dont see how Obama wins Nevada or Colorado again.  Those are both states that seem to go against the White House when Democrats hold it.  In 1996, Clinton lost Colorado after winning it handily in 1992 and came within 4,000 votes of losing Nevada after winning it by 13,000 in 1992. 

[Mr.Phips]

These numbers are starting to look brutal, if they hold.

They mostly resemble Reagan`s numbers at this point, who was also at 45% in March of '82.

So nothing to worry about yet, especially considering the horrible crop of Presidential candidates the Republicans currently have.

And Carter's were higher.  I think that Reagan's disapproval numbers were lower.

Rasmussen was not around back then.  You cannot possibly compare Gallup polls to Rasmussen. 

[Mr.Phips]

SUSA sez Obama`s under water evrywhere, even in fkin California !. Takea look:

California: 46-49
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=c717d146-99e7-4de8-8217-9fb792fc2fb8

Kansas: 34-61
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=c9cb9d95-0451-467c-8613-efb0bf5d4a7e

Oregon: 42-53
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=87dabdb7-5435-402e-891e-11b3bf475127

Washinbgton: 45-53
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=c34262fe-7152-4e56-be8d-dd7e32b0f6dd

These numbers cant possibly be right.  No way Obama is as popular as he is nationwide in California.

[Mr.Phips]

Obama Gallup Approval rating June 2010:

46% Approve

46% Disapprove

Trends for comparison:

Carter: 43/42 (June 1978)

Reagan: 45/46 (June 1982)

Bush I: 68/18 (June 1990)

Clinton: 46/46 (June 1994)

Bush II: 73/20 (June 2002)

Rasmussen is more accurate because it collects a proportional amount of voters.

You cant compare Rasmussen data to old data beacsue Rasmussen didnt exist before 2000.

[Mr.Phips]

Obama Gallup Approval rating June 2010:

46% Approve

46% Disapprove

Trends for comparison:

Carter: 43/42 (June 1978)

Reagan: 45/46 (June 1982)

Bush I: 68/18 (June 1990)

Clinton: 46/46 (June 1994)

Bush II: 73/20 (June 2002)

In Clinton's case, he was off his lows (37%) and growing.  The Gallup numbers I've seen had him at 46-48% in October or November 1994.  Carter was in his low trough for the first two years, and would also rebound by the midterms.

Only Reagan was showing declining numbers.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm

Carter kept declining until he hit 39% in August and stayed around 40% until the Camp David Accords in mid-September, which allowed him to rise back to 49% by election day.  

Clinton also hit 39% in August and didnt recover until he reached 48% in late October, falling to 46% on election eve.  Had Clinton maintained that 48% until election day, Democrats probably would have kept the House.

[Mr.Phips]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 42%, u.

Disapprove 57%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 27%, +2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 46%, u.

Those strongly dissapprove numbers show that he has a very solid bloc of the country that would never, ever vote for him.  Moreso than Clinton and certainly moreso than Reagan.