The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[pbrower2a]

power2, who is green and who is yellow on the map?

Green -- states in which the approval for Barack Obama is greater than disapproval, as measured in the latest poll or average of most recent polls. Pale green is under 50%; medium green is 50-55%; dark green is 55% to 64%; very dark green is an approval greater than 64%.  

White is an exact tie in which approval and approval are both under 50%. Aqua (which I have used once) is for a rare 50-50 tie.

Shades of yellow indicate disapproval greater than approval for Obama. In such cases, a pale yellow indicates disapproval under 50%, beige disapproval 50% to 55%, and tan disapproval  56% to 65%. Genuine brown indicates disapproval of 55% or more (I have never seen any place with such a polling, but I presume it for Nebraska's Third District (there was an unflattering poll for Nebraska at large, and NE-03 is the arguably the most right-leaning district or State that figures to offer electoral votes.  If Obama's disapproval is 64% in Nebraska at large, then NE-03 probably gives about 70% disapproval.

Gray indicates that the state has never been polled (Alaska, DC, North Dakota,  Mississippi, and Vermont) or most recently showed greater approval than disapproval for Barack Obama six months or more ago (Indiana, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Nebraska's Third District. Obama either lost those states or barely won the state or district in 2008 (which would now make such a poll suspect or worthless).

I am not coloring Idaho or Utah gray because nobody has reasonable cause to believe that those states, two of which most strongly voted for John McCain, would reasonably give a positive approval for Obama, and the last poll showed more disapproval than approval. Idaho and Utah surely disapprove more sharply than the pale yellow suggests, but I can't say how much right now.

As it is now, if Obama wins every state now in any shade of green, Vermont, and the District of Columbia (the latter two among the strongest voters for Obama in 2008), he would win re-election in 2012. It's very hard to lose a state when one has 50% or stronger approval in a Presidential election or stronger approval than disapproval.  All of those states voted for Obama by at least 9% in 2008.

Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, and Virginia have been jumping from one 'camp' to another (Wisconsin and Ohio are in that group).

Do I have a conclusion? Sure!  Political support for Obama is pretty much where it was in 2008 and disapproval is largely where he was voted against. The polarization of American politics remains severe.
      

[pbrower2a]

Here is a map more of electoral history in America since 1992 than anything else. That's sixteen years and five Presidential elections:

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia haven't voted for a Republican nominee for President after 1988, and all voted for Obama by a double-digit margin in 2008 -- and those states and DC will account for about 240 electoral votes in 2012 after reapportionment.  It's possible for a Republican nominee to win the Presidential nominee  to win election without those states and without the states (Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) that barely voted for Dubya once. To win more than 300 electoral votes, the GOP nominee for President  must cut into the so-called Blue Firewall, which requires an effective assault on the political culture in some states best described as aggressively secular and comparatively liberal. A Southern reactionary won't do that job, and will not only lose the whole Blue Firewall but also Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico as well.

Who runs of course matters greatly.

At that point the GOP has plenty of ways to lose -- Virginia, Ohio, or Florida singly, or a combination of Colorado and Nevada. That's before I even discuss such states as North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, Georgia, Montana, NE-02, or Arizona that Obama wins only if he wins certain other states (he's not going to win North Carolina without winning Virginia, Indiana or Missouri without winning Ohio, Georgia without winning Florida, or Arizona without winning Colorado and Nevada) in an electoral year similar to 2008, or any of the states that Clinton could win but in which Obama got clobbered in in 2008 . Any wins -- or even near-misses -- in any of those states (in green) would suggest that Obama has resuscitated the Clinton coalition with Huckabee not having won the GOP nomination.

Anything in blue hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee for President since at least Jimmy Carter in 1976 or LBJ in 1964, and not one of them was close in 2008. Ignore shades of blue.

[pbrower2a]

Only one state (Virginia)

... but it is absolutely essential to any Republican victory, just like Florida, Ohio, or a combination of Colorado and Nevada.

[pbrower2a]

Actually Virginia isn't essential. It just increases it's chances, significantly.

The 2010 realignment changes everything.

The Republicans haven't won a Presidential election without winning Virginia since 1924. To win the Presidential election without winning Virginia the Republicans would have to pick off either Pennsylvania or two of Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Democrats can win and have won without Virginia (1960, 1976, 1992, 1996).  

The Blue Firewall was 248 electoral votes in 2008 and I expect about eight congressional seats to disappear from those states in 2010; Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico comprised 15 electoral votes in 2008 and will be roughly the same in 2012. Virginia might gain a seat. With 14 electoral votes in Virginia and a loss of 8 electoral votes in the Blue Firewall, Obama gets 269 electoral votes and state delegations decide who becomes President. New Mexico wins a Congressional seat, and Obama wins with Virginia.

[pbrower2a]

Do we think there will be a boost from Obama's Nobel Prize win?

Any Nobel Peace Prize for President Barack Obama is premature. Obama has yet to bring peace to either Iraq or Afghanistan. For getting a settlement in Korea, Dwight Eisenhower deserved a Nobel Peace Prize far more than does Barack Obama.  He might get credit for not making the same mistakes as George W Bush... but Nobel Prizes are not awarded for "not doing bad" or "not being as bad" as a predecessor.

It's hard to figure the Nobel Prize committee, and the Prize may have been awarded to strengthen the President's standing against nutty regimes in Iran and North Korea. If t takes a Peace Prize to get Ahmedinedjad or Kim Jong-il to do the right thing -- it's better that a Nobel Peace Prize be awarded to a scoundrel than that some scoundrel shoot missiles at Tel Aviv or Seattle. Some sacrifices are worth them.

It's too early to be of any use in the 2012 election.

[pbrower2a]

Nevada checks in, and it has nothing to do with any Nobel Peace Prize:

Really, Nevada is a pipe dream for the GOP in 2012, and not because of the surprising margin for Obama in 2008. If it's close, then a bunch of California Democrats will have such a huge presence in the Obama campaign effort in Nevada, many will even take up legal residence in Nevada so that they can vote there. If it isn't close, then the Obama campaign will do that in Arizona instead.

The GOP can win in 2012 without Nevada, but it would have to win everything else that Bush won in both 2000 and 2004. 

[pbrower2a]

Nevada checks in, and it has nothing to do with any Nobel Peace Prize:

Really, Nevada is a pipe dream for the GOP in 2012, and not because of the surprising margin for Obama in 2008. If it's close, then a bunch of California Democrats will have such a huge presence in the Obama campaign effort in Nevada, many will even take up legal residence in Nevada so that they can vote there. If it isn't close, then the Obama campaign will do that in Arizona instead.

The GOP can win in 2012 without Nevada, but it would have to win everything else that Bush won in both 2000 and 2004. 

I wouldn't be so sure. Nevada is pretty anti-federal government, at least rural voters are. Now, I don't have any data for Nevada, but I do know that Hispanics are starting to turn against Republicans in Colorado. Now, obviously, by turn against I mean going from 60 approve to 45 approve. Plus, the longer the Las Vegas real estate problems go on, the harder it will be for Democrats to regain those voters.

If Reid is somehow defeated, I think Nevada goes from lean-Dem to toss-up in 2012.

Senator John Ensign is even more vulnerable than Harry Reid -- if for different reasons. Should Ensign have to resign before November 2010, then his successor and Harry Reid will both be similarly vulnerable in a near 50-50 state.

Have you ever been in Nevada outside of Reno and Vegas? Rural Nevada might be firmly Republican, but that's not where the people are. The people are in Greater Reno-Carson City and Greater Las Vegas. A drive on Interstate 80 across the state gives quite a geography lesson; Interstate 80 in Nevada looks little like Interstate 80 in between Joliet and North Platte (farmland, farmland, and more farmland) even without the mountains.  I can only imagine the impression that Interstate 15 in Nevada creates -- one even sharper than Interstate 80 because Interstate 15 goes through outright desert.

Does Nevada have any large population centers outside of Greater Las Vegas and Greater Reno-Carson City? Only if you count such places as Elko, Battle Mountain, Winnemucca, Hawthorne, Ely, and Tonopah that act like large cities because they are in the middle of nowhere other than miles of rangeland in every direction with perhaps a little mining or a military base. Laughlin might as well be part of Vegas, and Henderson is part of Greater Las  Vegas, thank you. 

Urban Nevada seemed very Democratic in 2008, thank you. That's where the people are, and it would have to be split about 51-49 for the Republicans to have a chance in Nevada.

Harry Reid is vulnerable for some unpopular deeds -- mostly in attempting to keep federal lands locked up so that urban Nevada remains overpriced. That has nothing to do with Obama.  His behavior may have made the economic hardships in Las Vegas all the more severe. Obama gets no blame for that. Should the economy pick up at all, Las Vegas will do better, and Obama will get the credit.

[pbrower2a]

No of course it's a pipe dream! Pbrower knows all!

No -- I just know how Obama campaigned in 2008 and expect much the same in 2012.

[pbrower2a]

All stated they vote regularly in state elections.

That's kind of a weird model.

A Senatorial election -- the one in which Harry Reid is apparently vulnerable -- is a statewide election. So is any election that involves someone to complete part of a term of Senator John Ensign should he resign -- and he might.

[pbrower2a]

No of course it's a pipe dream! Pbrower knows all!

No -- I just know how Obama campaigned in 2008 and expect much the same in 2012.

Obama, unlike McCain, waged a most positive spirited campaign in 2008 (and with that came the positive media coverage) and, God willing, the president will have a positive record to run on in 2012

The McCain-Palin campaign was a sickening spectacle, by comparison. Palin's rallies, during which she incited hatred on the stump towards a political opponent, undoubtedly, alienated many swing voters

Add to that -- Obama had as well-organized a campaign as anyone in recent history, and he picked his battles well.

.... I hope that we never see stump speeches as demagogic, divisive, and inflammatory as those of Sarah Palin again from any candidate for President or Vice-President.    

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Add to that -- Obama had a

a) Bush

b) the economy

c) a stock market meltdown, complete with bank collapses

d) a corrupt media establishment basically working for him, often conforming to his campaign propaganda and covering up anything that could hurt him.

That says nothing about FoX Propaganda Channel.

Obama knows how to attract and keep media attention, and to act so that the attention is neutral at worst. He's always good copy.

In 2012, Obama will still have

1) George W. Bush to kick around, as in

"So and so ... just like George W. Bush".  I can almost see the ads in which some opponent's face morphs into that of George W. Bush.

2) the economy -- and if it is showing steady growth even short of an all-out boom, he can claim that slow growth is best for all. Who wants another speculative boom?

3) the stock market and real estate crash of 2009 in the rear-view mirror fading  into the horizon

4) a legislative record. 

[pbrower2a]

Today's gallup numbers

Approval 56%(no Change)
Disapproval 36%(-1)

Obama is surging.

I'll wait until I see other, non-Gallup  polls to be sure.

56-39 suggests not simply 5% or so across the board, but major changes in patterns of support. Piling on support in New York, New England, or California means nothing. But if you see a virtual tie in Texas, something important is happening.

[pbrower2a]

Gallup

Approve 52%(-4)
Disapprove 39%(+3)

BYE BYE BOUNCE!

Just as I told people. Legislative achievements (or their lack) and economic conditions would matter more.

[pbrower2a]

It's a college poll (Mid-Tennessee State University) in a state that has been little polled:
 

Tennessee. If that state is close (really a statistical tie), then there should be some interesting polls coming up. If the poll shows a genuine move in popular support for Obama, then we ought to see much more green appear (CO, FL, IA, MO, MT, NC  -- maybe IN and NE-02 again).

Of course it is a college poll, and it might have some limitations.

[pbrower2a]

Iowa:

Not since 1976 has the Democratic Presidential nominee won election without Iowa.

[pbrower2a]

Not since 1976 has the Democratic nominee won election without Iowa.

hmm you wish it was favorables

Of course it is possible for a candidate to lose an individual state with a high favorability rating. Obama could have a 65% favorability rating in Utah and lose decisively to Mitt Romney or a similarity rating of a similar level and lose to Mike Huckabee in Arkansas.  But losing under those circumstances requires situations specific to a State to arise.

Obama won 54% of the vote in Iowa, so the favorability rating is close to what one could reasonably expect in 2012 if nothing truly changes.

...It's about time for polls of Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska,  the Dakotas, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

[pbrower2a]

Illinois (Rasmussen)

56% Approve
44% Disapprove

This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Illinois was conducted by Rasmussen Reports October 14, 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_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/illinois/toplines/toplines_2010_illinois_senate_october_14_2009

All that changes is a letter:

Please wake me when fresh Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, West Virginia, Arizona, or Colorado polls appear.

[pbrower2a]

I don't round up between 45% and 55%.  I see a  bigger distinction between 53% and 56% than between  50% and 53%, largely because 56% is outside the usual margin of error in polls. (Really, 55% is too, but I took enough heat to buckle on that one).   60% (really 56-64%) approvals are rare (look at the map), and 70% approvals might not even exist at times.  

That applies to negative approvals too. If Obama has a disapproval rating of 56%, I round that up too.  

I look more at the likelihood of winning than the likely margin of winning or losing. Surely you can see the very dark shades, too, in the South and the Great Plains region, and I don't underplay those.   All in all, my map is the best surrogate now available for predicting whether Obama would win or not win certain states when we have no idea of who his opponent will be (which would change much). It can show whether Obama would win with approvals as they are at a given time. It can show patterns of regional change in support.

Does anyone doubt that if one started to see lots of pale greens and yellows in New England that Obama would be in trouble there? If I saw a bunch of pale yellows and greens in the South or the Plains, then that would say something about Obama's chances of winning there.

The current pattern looks much like polls did for Obama a year ago, three weeks before November 4, 2008.  

[pbrower2a]

Why I disagree with rounding up:
Your map makes it appear that at least 60% of Illinois residents approve of Obama, when less than 60% does. It is deceiving.

pbrower2a has a valid point. It`s only 56% in "Rasmussen-World".

*facepalm*

So what if Rasmussen says it is 56%?

I bet pbrower would do this rounding up nonsense no matter who is doing the poll.

True, except for one thing: I don't consider the rounding "nonsense". I do it both ways, so I am consistent. I average polls less than two weeks apart because a three-day difference between Rasmussen and PPP doesn't mean much.  

If a bunch of polls in September 2012 showed that Obama were ahead 57% to 43% in Michigan and behind 57% to 43% in Texas,  but were ahead 52% to 48% in Florida and behind 52% to 48% in Indiana that he would be bleeding resources from Florida to Texas to make Texas "closer" or from Indiana to Michigan to widen his lead in Michigan? I'd expect exactly the opposite, which is how he did things in 2008.

Until we see lots of statewide individual match-ups (let us say Huckabee 49%, Obama 44% in Arizona or Obama 49%,  Romney 47% in Iowa) the favorability and performance ratings are all that we have.    

At least I show my methods.  Yes, I round up 56% because the difference between 56% and 62% is much less significant in winner-take-all elections than is the difference between 56% and 52%.  I have rounded both ways, and a 56% disapproval rating also rounds to 60%.

Why do I do it this way? Because in 2008, campaigning operated on the margin -- and not on the general level of support. 

[pbrower2a]

Michigan (EPIC-MRA)

48% Excellent/Good
51% Fair/Poor

51% Favorable
45% Unfavorable

The poll was conducted between Oct. 11-15 of 600 voters and has a margin of error of +/- 4%.

http://woodtv.triton.net/news/epic%20poll%2010209.txt

The Michigan result is an average of an approval and a performance rating. Both have been used.

Obama support is shaky in Michigan now -- economy in the sewer? The pale green is marginally above a 50-50 tie. No Democratic nominee for President has won election without Michigan since Jimmy Carter in 1976, and then only because of Michigan's Favorite Son (Gerald Ford).

Cash for Clunkers is over, so that can explain much.  It was popular in Michigan.

[pbrower2a]

Interesting polls, Florida and Louisiana:

Sometimes you get what you ask for. Florida isn't that much of a surprise; Obama barely won the state in 2008. Recent polls in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee suggest that although he would lose those states he wouldn't lose them by as much as in 2008. Could the political polarization of 2008 be abating?

[pbrower2a]

Favorable are not approvals!
Everyone, please disregard Phacker's map on Michigan. It is false.

Take a look at the title of this thread. There just aren't enough of the polls that you prefer. That is your problem -- not mine. Given a choice I averaged because I have no cause to favor one sort of poll over another.

The average of 51% and 48% is 49.5%. The average of 45% and 51% is 48%. Thus a light-green shade.

[pbrower2a]

Sometimes you get what you ask for. Florida isn't that much of a surprise; Obama barely won the state in 2008. Recent polls in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee suggest that although he would lose those states he wouldn't lose them by as much as in 2008. Could the political polarization of 2008 be abating?

No, and you're an idiot if you think it will be close in those states.

Florida will almost certainly be close in 2012.

I didn't say that it would be close in Kentucky, Louisiana, or Tennessee; I simply said that it would be closer in 2012 in some of the states that Obama got clobbered in in 2008, perhaps most likely in those states that Bill Clinton won but Obama got crushed in in 2008. Familiarity does not always breed contempt. 

[pbrower2a]

I agree with Rowan (though not with the idiot part ... ). There`s a difference in the approval rating and an actual campaign between 2 people. 25% of White People in Lousiana will currently say they approve of Obama, but 10% of them will never vote for Obama, as seen last year, and Obama ends up with 15% of Whites if the election is held now (or even less). Same with Utah: Obama could have 60% approvals there and lose the state by 70-30 today to Romney.

1. Why does anyone pay attention to this thread? Because it can show trends that suggest where Obama is gaining or losing support.  Such can show the effectiveness or failure of his legislative agenda and consequences of his foreign policy. Such can show whether Obama is gaining or losing support. For example, if a Gallup poll shows Obama 50-50 in approval, then is it because he is losing support in states that he barely won or in states that weren't close? If he is up 54-45, then is he piling on support in New York and California or is he drawing closer in places like Kentucky and Texas? It can show the shape of the next election.

For example, I could see Obama winning 54-45 in 2012 and picking up "only" Missouri, Montana, and Arizona (age wave and the reversal of the Favorite Son effect that allowed McCain to win Arizona) while adding 2% onto every margin by which he won where he did.  A 54-45 split could also imply the paring of some of the gigantic margins by which Obama won while allowing him to pick off more such states as Kentucky, Georgia, the Dakotas, and even Texas.       

2. Obama campaigned very little in some of the states that he lost by large margins, which includes Kentucky, Tennessee, and Louisiana. He worked margins -- which meant that he made lots of campaign appearances in North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, and Ohio. If he is in any doubt about being re-elected in 2012 he will work the margins again as he did in 2008.

3. You are right that favorable/unfavorable and approval/disapproval ratings three years before the 2012 election won't be relevant in 2012. The ideal is of course head-to-head matchups between two known candidates in active campaigns. The only reasonable certainty will be that barring some tragedy, Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President in 2012. They are the best predictors that we now have unless we try to rely upon assessments of political skills, economic performance, and military or diplomatic success. I can try to compare Barack Obama to other Presidents and figure that if he isn't the new Abraham Lincoln he isn't the new Millard Fillmore, either.   

4. Take a good look at one of the surprises of 2008: Virginia. Obama won the state and won it with surprising strength. Virginia had elected a black man as governor (Douglas Wilder) and he proved wholly adequate. In 2012 Americans even in the South -- yes, white ones, too -- will be accustomed to the idea that the President doesn't have to be white. In 2012 Obama runs on his record and wins or runs from his record and loses.

Obama has changed the style of American politics. Will people like that or dislike the change? Time and achievement will tell. If Obama does nothing to aggravate the fears of white Southerners, he could win back the Clinton-but-not-Obama vote and precipitate a landslide.

5. You restate something that I have said; approval ratings alone do not guarantee victory in any given state. Political culture matters greatly in any state, which explains how I have said that Romney could win Utah 70-30 against Barack Obama if Obama has even 60% support there. The prospect of electing the first Mormon President of the United States would have to be even more intoxicating than the "strong drink" that the LDS Church prohibits.  On the other side, Mike Huckabee would likely win Arkansas if Obama had a 60% favorability in Arkansas. The Favorite Son effect is real, too.

But those situations don't operate in enough states to make the difference in any but the closest of elections.  If Obama should have 60% approval ratings in Arizona and Colorado, he almost certainly wins both states against Romney or Huckabee.

6. Should the racial polarization of voting in the Deep South (Louisiana to South Carolina) weaken for the Presidency (if not state office), then Obama wins Louisiana -- and Mississippi. That of course asks for much. I could discuss ethnic polarization of voting in a long story in a thread of its own. That polarization fosters machine politics, with inherent corruption and insensitivity by politicians toward people who will never vote for them, even in hick towns. What if Obama creates a problem of perception -- that he is clearly better than the local machine hacks that people in the Deep South know all too well? In 2008, misgivings about elected officials that southern whites knew all too well (black elected officials associated with local Democratic machines) hurt Obama. Could southern whites see Barack Obama very differently from the corrupt local black politicians that they know (by the way, the white Republican machine pols are no better than the corrupt black Democratic machine pols; such is the nature of machine politics).

One political hack won't hurt Obama in Louisiana in 2012: William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, formerly US Representative, LA-01 (D) and now defeated and convicted of bribery. That crook may have lost Obama any chance to win Louisiana in 2008.  Don't expect him to get any Presidential pardon!

[pbrower2a]

Interesting polls, Florida and Louisiana:

Sometimes you get what you ask for. Florida isn't that much of a surprise; Obama barely won the state in 2008. Recent polls in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee suggest that although he would lose those states he wouldn't lose them by as much as in 2008. Could the political polarization of 2008 be abating?

No, and you're an idiot if you think it will be close in those states.

I didn't say that Obama will win those states in 2012 -- yet. Could? It's getting interesting. Recent polls in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee suggest that Obama is getting stronger approval than the 2008 election would have suggested in those three states.  A nominee with an approval rating just under 50% at election time is not going to get clobbered in such an area unless the political culture culture is unusual, the opponent is a Favorite Son, or the opponent is a very strong challenger.  Obama's  most recent polls in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee are not much weaker than those that he has in Florida, Ohio, or (something of a surprise this week) Michigan.

The three states have voted together since 1968 (when Wallace won Arkansas and Louisiana and Nixon won Tennessee). Bill Clinton won those three states twice, but Obama got clobbered this time. I don't have one data point from one shaky poll; I have three from different polls. Is Bill Clinton that much different from Barack Obama? Or could it be that white people in those three states (and not only those) just couldn't imagine a black man as President of the United States? They have gotten nine months to associate the Presidency with a black man -- and after three more years they will be much more accustomed to the reality.

I at first thought the poll in Tennessee suspect; after all, it was conducted from a college -- but the methodology was solid. The polls from Kentucky and Louisiana suggest that that poll was no outlier. Of course I would like to see corroboration in other polls -- South Carolina? Arkansas? Missouri? Alabama? Texas? Mississippi? 

People will vote for what they perceive as their self interest. If Barack Obama does well for them, then they will vote for someone who looks little like John F. Kennedy. But even at that, Obama has shown that he doesn't need Kentucky, Louisiana, or Tennessee for winning re-election, but the Republicans absolutely cannot afford to lose any one of those states.