The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[ConservativeIllini]

Nevada(PPP)

Approve 44%
Disapprove 52%

I have to question the unintentional bias in asking about President Obama approvals after mentioning the name of the toxic Harry Reid, who is sure to be voted out later this year.  It seems like this could drag down the president's approvals slightly (maybe it's just my skepticism, however).

Obama's approval was the first question asked:

Q1 Do you approve or disapprove of Barack
Obama’s job performance? If you approve,
press 1. If you disapprove, press 2. If you’re
not sure, press 3.
Approve .......................................................... 44%
Disapprove...................................................... 52%
Not Sure.......................................................... 4%

My mistake...not sure what the heck I was looking at

[ConservativeIllini]

Ohio, Oregon, New Jersey, Washington:

Unlike Rowan Brandon, who distinguishes between "under 50%" and "over 50%" I go for "approval under disapproval" (shades of yellow to dark brown), a tie (white), and "approval greater than disapproval" (shades of green). It's strictly a matter of taste, and I can't say that one is more relevant than the other at this point.

If there is a real difference it may be that his suggests the idea that if the GOP has a really-strong candidate in the wings, Obama loses in places in which his approval rating is below 50%. Mine suggests that the GOP lacks someone capable of offering an alternative, and that many disgruntled conservatives will find the choice between an uninspiring right-winger and an effective incumbent cause them to not vote.    

46 % is probably not enough to win Ohio, considering that the gop candidate is good.

Do we already have a 2012 Republican candidate for president?

The GOP will return to the White House by winning states that nobody now thinks reasonable targets.     

Really?  I mean, I know the 2008 election didn't sort out like team red had hoped, but this premise seems false.  After checking out the census's expected results, it appears that the Repubs need to win back IN, NC, VA, FL, OH, in order to regain control of the White House... 3 of those (IN, NC, VA) are long Republican strongholds, FL went blue in a VERY STRONG Democratic year by just 2.5%, and OH went blue by 4%, less than the national average. 

You're nuts if you think the 2012 campaign will resemble the 2008 campaign, as Obama can't run on transformative messages of hope and change anymore, but will have to run on his record (which may include a successful economic recovery, that is to be seen). 

So what states must the GOP win that you do not consider reasonable targets for team red?  I'm not trying to sound condescending, just looking for debate!

The 2012 election will either be:

1. A huge Obama loss (if he has a catastrophic Presidency, signs of which I have yet to see)

2. A close Obama loss (getting 230 - 268 electoral votes)

3. A tie (269 electoral votes) decided in the House of Representatives

4. A bare Obama win  (270 - 310 electoral votes)

5. A win similar to Obama's 2008 or one of Clinton's electoral victories (355-400 electoral votes)

6. A win on an Eisenhower scale in 1952 or 1956 (about 450 electoral votes).  

There's nothing between cases 1 and 2 or between 4 and 5; Presidential elections do not result in wins of 55% to 65% of the electoral votes.  The difference between Case 5 and Case 6 is basically Texas, which Obama lost by a little more than 10%.   If about 6% of Americans who voted for McCain over Obama recoiled at the idea of a black man as President in states that he lost by less than 12%, he wins those states, one of which is Texas. Obama has likely maxed out inside the Blue Firewall.

To win the Presidency again in 2012, the GOP must basically win just about everything that neither Gore won in 2000 or Kerry won in 2004 even though reapportionment of the House is likely to transfer about 10 House seats to states that voted for Dubya in both 2000 and 2004. The states in question are reasonably Colorado and Nevada together, Virginia, Florida, and Ohio that Obama actually won or Missouri, which he came close to winning. Obama cannot win North Carolina without also winning Virginia, Indiana without also winning Ohio, Georgia without winning both North Carolina and Florida, or Arizona (which would have been close except that John McCain campaigned from there) without winning Colorado and Nevada. But giving Obama about even chances to win Colorado and Nevada together, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida, then the chance that Obama wins the Presidency is about 31 in 32 because those states are different enough in their demographics that their voting results become "independent". That is a probabilistic model, and right now that is the best that I can come up with. Winning Indiana, North Carolina, Arizona, or Georgia are dependent on other wins, so I need not account for them.  But if one of those states becomes a prohibitive favorite for Obama, then the 2012 election is all but impossible.

Should Obama be effective as a legislator and administrator (watch how he deals with the earthquake in Haiti and you may finally get an idea of him as an administrator), his chances of losing in 2012 go from a certifiable long shot (1 in 32) to something prohibitive.  

It is worth remembering that Obama is a superb campaigner -- arguably the best since at least Ronald Reagan. Governing gives the President little opportunity to show any fiery rhetoric. It's just as well. We have no right to expect excitement from our elected public officials. That's what sporting events and blockbuster movies are for for couch potatoes who don't get their thrills from more athletic activities. In the summer of 2012 he goes back on campaign mode if necessary -- and only if the election is not a foregone conclusion.  His campaign machine is as good as any that I have ever heard of.

As for states that lie within the current "Blue Firewall" I am discussing 2016 and 2020 -- not 2012. States that do not now seem reasonable targets for "Team Red" in 2012, and the difference between 1976 and 1992 (I may need to pull out a map contrasting 1976 to 1992) suggests what a difference 16 years can make.  

It is quite possible that the best thing that could happen to the GOP is an Obama landslide in 2012.  Such would force the GOP to try to rebuild a new coalition that attempts to find constituencies that Obama  and Clinton took for granted and thus underserved. Might the GOP have to look to the poor for new voters? Corporate America and the Religious Right aren't turning out more voters. Poor people like welfare recipients, the long-term unemployed, and people with low-paying jobs? Your guess is as good as mine.  The Democrats rebuilt a winning coalition as a response to Reagan-era landslides, and their coalition from 1992 until now has been practically the same. 18 states and DC  haven't voted for any Republican nominee since at least 1988, and 13 haven't voted for any Democratic nominee since at least 1980.  When 31 states aren't really in contest over five electoral cycles, something is fishy at the least with the electorate.

Presidential elections are apparently not national contests; in sixteen years, 31 states might as well have been foregone conclusions. 

So none is basically your answer to my question posed above?

[ConservativeIllini]

Colorado(Rasmussen)

Approve 47%
Disapprove 52%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/colorado/toplines/toplines_2010_colorado_senate_january_13_2010

Colorado seems to be awfully consistent around that 52% disapproval number.  I didn't expect a state that voted so heavily for BO to turn quickly, but such is life.

[ConservativeIllini]

Indiana (Public Opinion Strategies - R)

44% Approve
53% Disapprove

Better than I expected in Indiana to be honest.

[ConservativeIllini]

New North Carolina numbers will be out tomorrow, per PPP.  Should be interesting to see where he stands, as he has been performing better (relatively speaking, of course) on the Atlantic Coast than many other parts of the country per recent polling.

[ConservativeIllini]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_122.pdf

That's the source of the new PPP poll stated by Poundingtherock on NC.

[ConservativeIllini]

Seems to be hitting a low right now, I'd like to see some more polling on WI and PA.

[ConservativeIllini]

Pennsylvania (F & M)

38% Excellent/Good
61% Fair/Poor

http://edisk.fandm.edu/FLI/keystone/pdf/keyjan10_1.pdf

This definitely deserves one of pbrower's "S" marks.  Or just ignore it.

[ConservativeIllini]

Obama at 46% approve, 54% disapprove in Wisconsin among 2010 likely voters.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/wisconsin/toplines/toplines_wisconsin_senate_january_26_2010

[ConservativeIllini]

I wouldn't worry about it pbrower, Wisconsin won't go Red in 2012 anyway unless Obama continues as a train wreck, which is unlikely.  Some good legislation is bound to pass at some point, or the economy is bound to turn around.  My thoughts anyway...

[ConservativeIllini]

In my opinion, his approval is likely going to enter the thirties and bottom out there by the end of the year.

If his approval goes into the thirties (which I don't think it will) the midterms are going to be an absolute bloodbath.

[ConservativeIllini]

Per PPP's Blance Lincoln Senate poll, Obama is at 38/58 in Arkansas.

[ConservativeIllini]

Per Quinnipiac, Obama approval at 57% in New York. 

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1420

[ConservativeIllini]

Rassy has Obama approval in Illinois at 54-45.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/illinois/election_2010_illinois_senate

[ConservativeIllini]

I don't really like EGFP polls, as some who say he is doing "fair" could still approve...

Rowan, you don't include those in your maps, correct?

[ConservativeIllini]

Rassy has Obama at 44/54 in Pennsylvania. 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_state_toplines/pennsylvania/toplines_2010_pennsylvania_democratic_senate_primary_february_8_2010

[ConservativeIllini]

Good news to start my day, thanks Rowan!

[ConservativeIllini]

So much for Obama being competitive in Texas, at least right now, eh?

I don't think anyone, even the biggest partisan, plans on Barack being competitive in Texas, at least for the near future.  It just isn't going to happen.

[ConservativeIllini]

I prefer your dark yellow, Pbrower, but its up to you.

[ConservativeIllini]

O at 51/48 in Washington per Rasmussen...these state polls are barely believable anymore, they are all extremely "flat"

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/washington/election_2010_washington_senate

[ConservativeIllini]

Rasmussen poll of Indiana:

44% Approve
54% Disapprove

Pretty good numbers for O there, as I don't believe there is anyone who thinks he can win that state again.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/indiana/election_2010_indiana_senate

[ConservativeIllini]

Rasmussen in Florida again for the Senate poll

45% approve
54% disapprove

[ConservativeIllini]

New Mexico (PPP)

45% Approve
48% Disapprove

PPP surveyed 990 New Mexico voters from February 18th to 20th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-3.1%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NM_224.pdf

Great news, thanks!

[ConservativeIllini]

You might want to consider putting an "S" on that South Carolina poll, Pbrower...

[ConservativeIllini]

You might want to consider putting an "S" on that South Carolina poll, Pbrower...

Show me that it is a partisan poll and I will do better-- I will remove it.

I thought about that -- but that's about where Obama has been in South Carolina since November with no poll of any kind since December. I thought that that was something like 47%.

It's 48%-40%, which has a HUGE undecided component -- 12%. The only thing strange about the poll is the huge undecided component.  But that large undecided/no response component doesn't hide the fact that the Republicans are doing badly in South Carolina. Think about it: 28% of the people are undecided on whether they like their incumbent Senator. In what is supposed to be a good year for Republicans, an incumbent Republican Senator in a supposedly-strong Republican state should have an approval above 42%.

Rasmussen could give a harder poll at any time, and that would be enough to cut down this possible outlier.  But I also thought of the 41% F&M rating in Pennsylvania, which isn't too far out of line the other way of other polls, either. If I put an "S" on South Carolina I would also have to do so on Pennsylvania, which I think few want me to do. Just remember -- aqua isn't far from sand.  49-46 is aqua, 48-48 is white, and 47-50 is sand. 48-40  is aqua, and you would have to believe that 9 of the 12 who didn't give an opinion really think that Obama is sub-par to contradict "aqua".
 

Even so, I look at the Jesse Helms-like stances of James DeMint, the adultery-across -70-degrees-of-latitude  scandal involving the Governor, a callow racist statement by the Lieutenant Governor (the one making an analogy between stray animals and poor people, basically "The more we feed, the more they breed", a KKK slogan, by the way), and the "You lie!" outburst by Rep. Joe Wilson, and I can see South Carolina as a disaster for the GOP in 2010. It's only one state, but it is one. 

Well, do you remember back in the day when you initially decided on the "s" moniker for spurious or suspect polls?  It was when SurveyUSA initially had Virginia approval at 38/58, when the previous poll just a few weeks before had it around 47/52 or so.  Therefore, such a big and questionable change would render a poll "suspect", as I believe you yourself said.

Now, let's extrapolate that to the South Carolina poll number this time around.  The last poll out of SC had around a 50% disapproval for the President, correct?  Perhaps you can check that out.  In my opinion, a change of ~10% for no reason would qualify as "spurious", wouldn't you agree?