The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[pbrower2a]

You are such a liar. The only reason you are averaging it is because the Ohio poll is negative. If it was positive, you wouldn't be doing any kind of averaging.

Wrong! That is to keep recent polls relevant and not simply to decide that the most recent poll within a month supersedes all others. 

[pbrower2a]

What the hell is so hard about making an honest map without stupid rounding?

It's impossible to do so without rounding.

Really, I don't round between 45 and 55, which is the "interesting" zone. A candidate with a 56% approval rate is still closer to 60% than to 50%.

Political activity works at the margins. Big gains and losses are rare -- but telling.


Averaging seems to cause more trouble. I believe that if someone has a 52% approval rating from one poll on Monday, a 44% approval rating on Wednesday, and a 52% approval rating on Friday, is his approval really 52%? It's probably about 49%. Everything -- including polling itself -- entails estimates. Some estimates are more valid than others.   

[pbrower2a]

You don't make sense, pbrower. Obama's disapproval rating is higher than his approval rating in Ohio, yet you color it green because of rounding? There have been more Virginia polls in the past few weeks that have had Obama yellow, not green, yet you still leave Ohio green.
50% of Ohio residents do no support Obama. Only 48% do. I wouldn't even round if Obama had 59% in a state.

It's not rounding; it's averaging. A 49-48 difference, were it so, would still be green because it is positive -- just a very pale green. Turn it around, and it would be yellow.

I do not round between 45 and 55.

[pbrower2a]

Colorado (The Tarrance Group (R) for the Colorado Policy Institute)

48% Approve
47% Disapprove

The Tarrance Group is pleased to present the Colorado Policy Institute with the key findings from a survey of voter attitudes in Colorado. These key findings are based on telephone interviews with N=500 “likely” registered voters throughout the State. Responses to this survey were gathered September 16-17, 2009 and the confidence interval associated with a sample of this type is + 4.5%.

http://www.coloradopolicyinstitute.com/Key%20Findings%20CPI%209-21-09.pdf

See? Averaging prevents a sudden lurch of color for Colorado.

[pbrower2a]

Minnesota (Star Tribune):

51% Approve
34% Disapprove

Weird! The 14% undecided is remarkable.

I figure that people are confused about healthcare reforms.

[pbrower2a]

I can't wait until 2012 when that damn Socialist gets voted out of office. His approvals will be 20% on election day. Starting on Jan 20, 2013, Ron Paul will bring Capitalism back to America.

The bad socialism began when George W. Bush was President -- when his cronies in Big Business got to him and told him that if the economy didn't recover, he might be in almost as deep trouble as they in the event of a socialist revolution as they would be.

I estimate that we were five years away from a Red Revolution in the autumn of 2008 -- and the "republic" might have a hammer-and-sickle emblem attached to it as well as a proclivity to put tycoons, executives, and their political enablers between a firing squad and a wall. "Red" would mean Bolshevik and bloody -- and not the GOP. We may have gone from five years away from such a revolution to ten years away -- significant progress, of course.

The ideal will be that the bailed-out entities succeed and can give back the bailout funds to an Administration that uses them to pay down the national debt. Such would be a conservative dream -- and a means of ensuring a 40-state landslide for the President of the time. We now have no viable alternative; we must wait for the results. 

The solution for our economic mess is of course more capitalism -- not less. That means small businesses that can't buy access to lobbyists, can't buy off politicians, and can't influence the political process.  Such capitalism appears when the freefall is over. Bloated enterprises staffed with cruel executives and political operatives capable of convincing right-wing politicians that the key to economic growth is letting those companies corner markets and treat people badly are bad capitalism. We are better off with competing businesses; banking worked better when it was a veritable cottage industry. 

[pbrower2a]

One has to wonder if Obama's approvals wouldn't be lower if the "frontrunners" for 2012 weren't so atrocious.

A possible explanation.

Is the talent in the GOP that weak?

Unless Obama fails catastrophically as President (a legislative failure on health care reform is not such a failure), he is unlikely to be defeated in 2012.

It's going to take a new Ronald Reagan -- some charismatic candidate who can not only exude confidence, state his case clearly, make a "conservative" agenda seem moderate, and cut into Democratic support in the so-called Blue Firewall.

That will be tough. The political polarization in 2008 will not vanish of its own accord.

[pbrower2a]

Averaging Arizona:

I still think that as Arizonans recognize that John McCain won't be the GOP nominee for President  they won't be so supportive of "Generic Republican".

[pbrower2a]

http://azcapitoltimes.com/azpolicywonk/2009/09/28/poll-mccain-obama-kyl-have-similar-approval-ratings-in-az/

For calibration of Arizona, a contrast between President Barack Obama and the two US Senators from Arizona:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The two GOP Senators seem no different in public assessment of their effectiveness and popularity than President Obama. This may indicate that the mudflinging efforts of the Right, which have effectively cut at the assessment of Barack Obama have done little to shore up the assessment of Republican politicians. Those efforts have not succeeded in building support for Republican politicians. Political change to the benefit of Republicans will absolutely depend upon the creation of a positive image of Republican politicians.

I consider Senator Jon Kyl a plausible nominee for Vice-President of the United States in 2012.  He would probably enough to keep Arizona from swinging D in 2012.

[pbrower2a]

Given:

1. McCain is not popular in Arizona (and he isn't)
2. McCain can win Arizona over Obama (and he did)

Conclusion: A "generic," well-liked enough Republican can win Arizona without much hassle.

Given:

1. Senator Jon Kyl (R, AZ)is less well-regarded in Arizona than is Barack Obama
2. Senator Jon Kyl is a fair approximation of "Generic Republican"
3. The Favorite Son effect is real and good for about 10% for the Presidency and 5% for the Vice-Presidency

Conclusion:

Jon Kyl would probably keep Arizona from voting for Obama in 2012 as a GOP nominee for either President or Vice-President.

Other Republicans would have trouble in Arizona.

The GOP will be in deep trouble in America on the whole if it barely wins a Republican-leaning state. let alone loses it.

[pbrower2a]

I consider Senator Jon Kyl a plausible nominee for Vice-President of the United States in 2012.  He would probably enough to keep Arizona from swinging D in 2012.

LOL, you're ridiculous.

In any case, if you're playing the pick-a-vice-president-to-win-a-state game, Arizona is not the sorrt of state you should be going after.  Try a genuine toss up or slight-D state like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, or New Hampshire instead.

Kyl is a nobody garbage pick that would be laughed at for its incomprehensibility.

If Republicans can't win Arizona, they've already lost the election, so all else is academic.  McCain could have firewalled North Carolina or Indiana in 2008, but what difference would it have made?  Making the defeat look less brutal?

GOP talent in 2012 is thin. I just wanted someone to discuss Jon Kyl. Could he be chosen for ideological coherence with one of the major figures?

Genuine tossups in a 50-50 election are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin.  Pennsylvania is the sort of State that the GOP wins to get 320 EV, and Michigan is about as far from being a tossup in a 50-50 election as is Texas in a 50-50 election.

A Southern right-winger has no chance of cutting into the Blue Firewall.

[pbrower2a]

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

[pbrower2a]

Here we go again with two states (AZ, NC) that the GOP nominee can't afford to lose in 2012, and a fairly-large one out of reach for the GOP except in a landslide (NJ):

[pbrower2a]

New Jersey is out of reach except in a landslide?  It's only 8% more Democratic than the country.  That's barely more than Obama won by.  Was 2012 a landslide?  Conversely Texas is 19% more Republican than the country, yet is almost certain to be competitive?  What logic suggests this?  And for the record, Michigan is about half as far from the national average as Texas, so stop trying to compare the two.

Let's put it this way: if New Jersey goes GOP, then the GOP has a landslide.  If you accept that the eighteen states and DC that haven't voted for a Republican nominee for President since 1988 all went by more than 10% for Obama and will comprise about 240 electoral votes (in other words, if the GOP nominee manages to win everything else, which would be Kerry 2004 without New Mexico or Gore 2000 without Iowa and New Mexico, then that nominee would win about 300 electoral votes. That's about what JFK did in 1960 in a close election.

Beyond that, the GOP nominee has to pick up such states as Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to get into the range of 340 electoral votes.

In fact the zone between 310 and 360 electoral votes is quite unstable for any Presidential nominee.  A candidate can take low-risk efforts to improve his position when he thinks he has a floor of 250 or so electoral votes -- campaign a little more in a few marginal places, and cut deals with critical special interest groups, and one might do fine. When that floor drops to 220 or so the candidate knows that he is losing badly and must take chances that risk doing far worse or get a slight chance of winning.

So imagine the scenario if Obama knew that he needed about 30 more electoral votes to have a real chance to win, and the only opportunity were a longshot known as Texas, with 34 electoral votes which he has about a 10% chance of winning as states like Iowa and Pennsylvania fade away from him. So he blitzes Texas with ads and campaign appearances.  By doing so he may be exposing himself to losses of states like Michigan and Washington, but what could he do?

(If you think that that is absurd, think of what John McCain tried to do in Pennsylvania late in the 2008 election. His efforts there cost him the chance to win some states that the GOP absolutely needed but that weren't adequate for winning).

Of course, under about 180 electoral votes (about a third of the total, or 2/3 of what is necessary to win), the candidate knows that he has practically no chance and starts thinking about other ways to enhance his political career. Maybe the Senate or the Governor's Mansion isn't so bad after all. 

Texas is out of reach in 2012, and like such states as new Jersey and Michigan it goes into play only when the winning side is on the brink of winning 400+ electoral votes.

[pbrower2a]

For those who don't like seeing the very dark pine green color on Maine, it does go down a bit to something more credible:

I'd love to see new results for Indiana, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and NE-02...

[pbrower2a]

First two October polls:

Note that I DO NOT round up positive approval polls under 50% even if they are 49-42 (as in Pennsylvania).

[pbrower2a]

SUSA’s Monthly numbers are out:

Alabama: 37/61
California: 62/33
Iowa: 46/48
Kansas: 39/57
Kentucky: 39/57
Minnesota: 55/40
Missouri: 44/54
New Mexico: 50/45
New York: 63/33
Oregon: 59/37
Virginia: 49/48
Washington: 53/42
Wisconsin: 47/47

http://www.surveyusa.com/50StateTracking.html

[pbrower2a]

SUSA’s Monthly numbers are out:

Alabama: 37/61
California: 62/33
Iowa: 46/48
Kansas: 39/57
Kentucky: 39/57
Minnesota: 55/40
Missouri: 44/54
New Mexico: 50/45
New York: 63/33
Oregon: 59/37
Virginia: 49/48
Washington: 53/42
Wisconsin: 47/47

http://www.surveyusa.com/50StateTracking.html

How is it that Obama has such higher approvals in Oregon than Washington?

WA is more liberal... therefore more disappointed with Obama's pandering and lying and flip-flopping and basically direction-less administration

Possibly

pandering, lying, and flip-flopping... not nearly as much as his predecessor.

[pbrower2a]

How is it that Obama has such higher approvals in Oregon than Washington?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

pandering, lying, and flip-flopping... not nearly as much as his predecessor.

That's isn't true at all. Bush only really flip-flopped on foreign policy things, which could be justified by post-9/11 fear (still not a great excuse) and even so, I though Obama was going to bring the troops home? Yeah, I thought so. Obama is far worse of a liar and flip-flopper and panderer. He is so splineless that his party can control everything yet he can't get his own healthcare plan done. Bush managed to push through a worse healthcare plan with far less favorable numbers (Medicare D)

Pandering -- to the money changers

Lying -- lies about non-existent WMDs to get us into a high-profit war in Iraq on behalf of American oil companies.

Flip-flopping? from the definitive free-market (or at least profits Above All Else) to the bailout of failed cronies in the banking industry. 

[pbrower2a]

Wisconsin (Wisconsin Policy Research Institute)

57.4% Approve
40.4% Disapprove

About what I expected.

(with a Virginia poll):

[pbrower2a]

Kentucky - Rasmussen
47% Approve
53% Disapprove

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/kentucky/toplines/toplines_2010_kentucky_senate_september_30_2009

Don't ask!

Kentucky? Momentous!

Should the GOP have to defend Kentucky, then it has lost.

[pbrower2a]

Should the Democrats have to defend New Jersey, then it has lost.

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 look at the 2008 election, and rather few states were really close. McCain won it by a 16.22% margin, which is in the range of the states that Clinton won but Obama got clobbered in. A bigger margin than Texas, mind you.

The five-point margin surprises me, but it is from Rasmussen, so what do you want to believe? I've ordinarily thought Rasmusseen R-leaning, so it's unlikely to be an outlier.   I'd like to see corroboration in polls in other states that voted like Kentucky in the last 20 years (Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia) -- or debunking.   

 

[pbrower2a]

Obama didn't campaign much in Kentucky... but he did in North Carolina (which he barely won) and Georgia (until he gave it up when he had to defend a few states that he absolutely had to win). Such made a huge difference. About all the campaign activity was the buying of advertising time on Kentucky TV and radio stations in Louisville, Paducah,  Ashland, and southeastern Kentucky that reach into battleground states (Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia) .

I don't know how genuine the 47-53 split is; Obama would absolutely not win Kentucky with that sort of disapproval. Mike Huckabee would clearly win Kentucky because his political culture fits Kentucky well. But Romney or Pawlenty? Don't be so sure. The 2008 election was between a d@mnyankee and someone (John McCain) with southern cultural roots. Unless Huckabee wins the Democratic nomination, the 2012 election will be between two d@mnyankee Northerners.

Question: can Obama win over the southern populist vote? That vote turned against him in 2008. But should Obama get populist-like results, that vote might turn on the GOP.

In any event the 2012 US Senate race in Kentucky will be interesting.

[pbrower2a]

John McCain was southern? He was born in Panama, went to boarding school in Alexandria, and then settled in Arizona. How is he southern?

His family is from Mississippi.

[pbrower2a]

The odd 50-50 tie in New Hampshire vanishes.

Louisiana update -- it looks as if Obama isn't popular there, but neither is the Republican Senator (understandable in view of a sex scandal)-- or (to my surprise) Governor.  A governor having problems with popularity in his own state (unless he belongs to the minority Party in his state) seems to have greatly-reduced chances of winning a Presidential nomination. 

North Carolina -- two polls, and they average to about 45-51. That's not much of a change from what I showed last time, but it just goes over the line of 50% disapproval, and so the darker hue. Now you see why I average polls out.

Tennessee, anyone? Georgia? South Carolina? Mississippi (which has never been polled since the election)?

It looks as if trust for politicians of all political stripes is down -- way down -- in the South. Conservative Republicans may not be delivering the goods there, and should Obama build trust in that region of America, then Election Night, 2012, will be a very short one for media spin.