The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[J. J.]

MO & MI

30%-39%-Dark Dark Red
40%-44%- Dark Red
45-49%- Red
tied - White
Under 50% approval but approval higher than disapproval- Yellow
50%-54%- Light Green
55%-59%- Green
60%+- Dark Green

It looks like a county slipping slowly away from Obama.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47%, +2.

Disapprove 52%, -2.


"Strongly Approve" is at 26%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, -3.

In range.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 46%, -1.

Disapprove 53%, +1.


"Strongly Approve" is at 26%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, u.

In range.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47%, +2.

Disapprove 52%, -2.


"Strongly Approve" is at 26%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, -3.

In range.

If this is where President Obama starts in February 2012 then he has about a 90% chance of winning re-election. 44% approval is about the break-even point.

This is August 2010, not February 2012.  There has been a general and substantial decline in his number, long term.  The only good news for Obama, is that, sort term, there has been no decline, though no improvement.

[J. J.]

I assume no further long-term decline. There will be statistical noise, perhaps reflecting the news of the day (including economic indicators as announced). The potential for a big economic downturn is much smaller than it was in the winter of 2008-2009. There is no speculative boom for the simple reason that none is possible. The US is pulling out of combat operations in Iraq (a good thing, because they were ineffective) and has a scheduled exit from Afghanistan. It might not be Eisenhower getting an armistice in Korea, but it isn't the worst scenario possible. Sure, I'd love to see Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri on the way to a federal criminal trial for the capital offense of genocide for 9/11 -- but who knows whether either is alive.

As I have said elsewhere, President Obama will run on his achievements in 2012 and win -- or try to run from his failures (yet to be shown) and lose.  Such will manifest themselves in approval polls.

I'm seeing a rough stabilization only from June and no bounce off the lows.  The best thing that can be said is that the numbers are not declining.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45%, -1.

Disapprove 53%, u.


"Strongly Approve" is at 26%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 43%, +1.

In range.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 43%, -2.

Disapprove 56%, +3.


"Strongly Approve" is at 26%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 45%, +2.

The disapproval numbers are at the upper edge of range, but still within range.

Note that range includes situations where approve is lower than strongly disapprove.

[J. J.]

Gallup: 42/49

Ouch.

Mosque effect ?

Probably. A typical news item affecting the approval rating. Strictly speaking, President Obama is right on this one; the First Amendment offers no usable exemptions to free speech and free expression of religion. It protects unpopular speech and religion, and in view of the hazards for finding exceptions, our professor of Constitutional Law has done the right thing.



This one will blow off.

Other than saying it is a local issue (which it is), and defending First Amendment Rights (which he ultimately did), he intruded on the issue.

I don't have a problem with the mosque, but this was bad politics on Obama's part.

[J. J.]

Saying nothing on the mosque issue would of very quickly lead to opportunists who are using it to demagogue announcing loudly "Where does the president stand on this?", which would increase the amount of exposure he would get on the issue. So it is better to give the answer before there becomes lots of cries about it and have people go 'oh' and give the country time to move onto things that are actually important (jobs, the economy, ect). So basically as it was quickly becoming a distraction, it was best to go out there and grab hold of a position before things got even sillier.

Still, a tough move to make. And a possibly unpopular one (I'm still not sold that a majority wanted the government to intervene, but its obvious that the mosque as planned was unpopular). But I'll give him props for standing up for what he believes is right.

So goes the myth that President Obama sticks a most finger in the air before making a decision. He lets the polls sink for a few days inconsequential to winning any election so that he can be right. Even if the reasoning is inconvenient it is right. The First Amendment has no exceptions for the unpopular, unpatriotic, unorthodox, and impolitic. This is the "Professor of Constitutional Law" that Sarah Palin so derides.

President Obama is right on this one.

But it is not the constitutional role of the President to determine zoning in NYC either.

[J. J.]

Saying nothing on the mosque issue would of very quickly lead to opportunists who are using it to demagogue announcing loudly "Where does the president stand on this?", which would increase the amount of exposure he would get on the issue. So it is better to give the answer before there becomes lots of cries about it and have people go 'oh' and give the country time to move onto things that are actually important (jobs, the economy, ect). So basically as it was quickly becoming a distraction, it was best to go out there and grab hold of a position before things got even sillier.

Still, a tough move to make. And a possibly unpopular one (I'm still not sold that a majority wanted the government to intervene, but its obvious that the mosque as planned was unpopular). But I'll give him props for standing up for what he believes is right.

So goes the myth that President Obama sticks a most finger in the air before making a decision. He lets the polls sink for a few days inconsequential to winning any election so that he can be right. Even if the reasoning is inconvenient it is right. The First Amendment has no exceptions for the unpopular, unpatriotic, unorthodox, and impolitic. This is the "Professor of Constitutional Law" that Sarah Palin so derides.

President Obama is right on this one.

But it is not the constitutional role of the President to determine zoning in NYC either.

Zoning laws cannot be used as means of denying the practice of an "inconvenient" religion.  They can be used for chasing out such nuisance businesses as venues of "adult" entertainment. Zoning laws cannot be used to favor one religious entity over another -- let us say a church over a synagogue.     

Nobody is suggesting they would or should, including Obama who mentioned that in his comment on this.  I am saying that what buildings NYC chooses to permit, and in this case did permit, is not an issue for the President.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44%, +1.

Disapprove 55%, -1.


"Strongly Approve" is at 26%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 45%, u.

Still in range.

[J. J.]

The truth of the comic in my signature has become more and more obvious. Obama may have a JD from Harvard, but his Presidency has shown that he's a moron.

Yeh, all those liberals in Pennsylvania's T and southern Virginia now hate him.

The problem is, simply, he had not delivered.

[J. J.]

I think that Americans are getting disgusted with politics of all kinds -- conservative, liberal, and Hard Right. Maybe politics can't deliver prosperity, but as the previous Administration proves, they can surely bring ruin.

If this isn't simply the news cycle, then we are in for some real ugliness in political life -- ugliness unprecedented in severity since the Civil War and in style in this country.

One of the major problem is that the majority is shifting and Obama is left (out to the left).

It is possibly a sign of a realignment (to the right).

[J. J.]

I think that Americans are getting disgusted with politics of all kinds -- conservative, liberal, and Hard Right. Maybe politics can't deliver prosperity, but as the previous Administration proves, they can surely bring ruin.

If this isn't simply the news cycle, then we are in for some real ugliness in political life -- ugliness unprecedented in severity since the Civil War and in style in this country.

One of the major problem is that the majority is shifting and Obama is left (out to the left).

It is possibly a sign of a realignment (to the right).

If such is so, then all the learning, natural resources, and technology that Americans have are pearls before swine. Welcome to Weimar America.

No, welcome to populist/libertarian America.

[J. J.]

Obama is less left-wing on economic issues than Nixon.

30 years of the Age of Reagan has really distorted the political landscape. What was once far-right is now moderate, what was once center-right is now center-left, etc.

No nominee for president since 1984 was to the left of the GOP nominee in 1976.  The reason?  We had a re-alignment centering on 1980 (1978-84).  It moved the county to the right.

This one, if it is happening, might move the county very far to the right.

[J. J.]

Obama is less left-wing on economic issues than Nixon.

30 years of the Age of Reagan has really distorted the political landscape. What was once far-right is now moderate, what was once center-right is now center-left, etc.

No nominee for president since 1984 was to the left of the GOP nominee in 1976.  The reason?  We had a re-alignment centering on 1980 (1978-84).  It moved the county to the right.

This one, if it is happening, might move the county very far to the right.

If we move much further to the right we might as well have a fascist country.

There is fascist and the is fascist.  If it goes where I'm thinking it will, I will probably be center-left in the re-alignment.

[J. J.]

Isn't a populist the exact opposite of a libertarian?

No, not in the least.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be de-alignment and we are getting more partisan.  

[J. J.]

Isn't a populist the exact opposite of a libertarian?

No, not in the least. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be de-alignment and we are getting more partisan. 

You seriously think there will be a realignment towards Republicans when more people disapprove of their job in the congress than the Democrats? It doesn't mean the Democrats don't lose big in 2010, since they are the incumbents. But what it means is that Republican support will be very shallow and the electorate could abandon them for the slightest of reasons. 

The electorate is changing.  Looking at 1980, the people who won were very different that the people who lost in 1976.  It is more than hating the incumbents; they are starting to hate what the incumbents stand for.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44%, u.

Disapprove 55%, u.


"Strongly Approve" is at 27%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 44%, -1.

Still in range.

[J. J.]

Isn't a populist the exact opposite of a libertarian?

No, not in the least. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be de-alignment and we are getting more partisan. 

You seriously think there will be a realignment towards Republicans when more people disapprove of their job in the congress than the Democrats? It doesn't mean the Democrats don't lose big in 2010, since they are the incumbents. But what it means is that Republican support will be very shallow and the electorate could abandon them for the slightest of reasons. 

It is not incumbency.  The electorate is rejecting the ideology of the Democrats of 2006-2008.  They are however, not turning to the Republican ideology of 2000-2006.  They are moving in a different direction.

[J. J.]

Obama brought the change, but public sentiment shifted to another type of change.

I don't necessarily disagree with you there, but I don't think this new movement is towards hard right politics. Rather it's a move away from business as usual in Washington and a search for common sense politicians ( this is why Obama was so popular when he was promising change in Washington). What seems to concern the tea partiers (like how Obama might be a muslim/foreigner, or how he is trying to take away "their" country) does not seem to concern normal Americans. The only thing the median voter and the Tea party share in common is frustration.

You are thinking the desire is to return to the 2000's.  It isn't.  Interestingly, if you remove the name Obama and insert Carter, you could be talking about 1978.

[J. J.]

Gallup just updated

41% approve (-1)
52% disapprove (+1)

Definitely not just statistical noise from ~46% anymore

Well, we are not seeing a parallel with Rasmussen.

[J. J.]

Big news -- the last US combat troops are leaving Iraq.

Hallelujah!

Until the questions, "Who lost Iraq," is asked or an Iranian problem comes up.

[J. J.]

Big news -- the last US combat troops are leaving Iraq.

Hallelujah!

Until the questions, "Who lost Iraq," is asked or an Iranian problem comes up.

Who lost Iraq? George W. Bush and the neocon clique.

Iranian problem? Maybe Allah can take Mahmoud Ahmedinedjad and send him to the Great Satan.

The dirty little secret was that with a brutal tyrant as its leader, Iraq was able to hold its own against Iran... without American combat troops. I see no evidence that any country except perhaps North Korea would stand in solidarity with Iran as an aggressor against Iraq. 

Quoted for truth.

This is one of the great problems of the mid-east, it is easily destabilized.  One thing a US presence does is provide stability.

Whatever president is in office loses points when the situation destabilizes. 

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 46%, +1.

Disapprove 53%, -1.


"Strongly Approve" is at 26%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 44%, u.

Still in range.

The drop in Gallup is not being reflected in Rasmussen.