The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[pbrower2a]

That's a very hopeful map for Obama.

I agree. There's about a zero chance that Obama wins states like LA (lol), TN, KY, WV or the western district of NE. AR is also unwinnable. SD and ND are becoming more favorable, but still lean Republican. But a Huckabee has a greater chance to lose them than, let's say a Romney has.

That map is already obsolete due to later polls. This is my more recent map, and in it I have exchanged white for yellow because yellow shows electoral votes better than does white:

Projection:
Navy -- Generic Republican strong (10% or more)
Blue  -- Generic Republican weak   (5 - 9.9%)
Pale blue -- Generic Republican, barely (under 5%)
Yellow -- Undeterminable or toss-up
Pink -- Obama, barely (under 5%)
Red -- weak Obama (5-9.9%)
Deep red -- strong Obama (10% or more)

For example, Nevada has been polled. It consolidates my assessment that anything that Obama won by 10% or more in 2008 is out of reach, and I need not wait for Maine, Vermont, or Maryland.

A more recent poll for Oklahoma suggests what about everyone reasonably thinks -- that Obama can be defeated there by about a 60-40 margin even if he wins nationwide at a 60-40 spread. I saw a poll for Alabama that gives Obama a 58% approval rating... not that I fully believe it.  But I have cause to believe that a 56% positive rating in Virginia is genuine, as that is close to the vote for Obama in 2008, and that is enough to put Virginia in the "solid Obama" category. West Virginia gave Obama about a 60% approval rating, suggesting that the depiction of Obama as an environmental extremist out to 'punish coal' may be unfounded. If the GOP won on that canard in 2008 and it remains a canard in 2012, then Obama wins West Virginia.

The Alabama poll suggests that some of those surprisingly-high ratings in some of the southeastern and south-central states in which Obama got clobbered in 2008 are genuine.  It's hard for me to believe that Obama is viewed more positively in Alabama than in Georgia -- but such reflects the latest polls. It could be an outlier. But note well -- the "Mid-South" (AL, AR, KY, LA, MS, and TN) is several states that generally move together in recent years. Those states may be easier to figure than Texas, which has no political analogue. Mississippi has yet to be polled, so I guess.

How could Obama be more popular in the South now than on November 4, 2008? He might not be. Those states have a strong heritage of admiration for the military, and they may have voted for McCain because of that heritage. McCain will not be the GOP nominee in 2012, and none of the likely GOP nominees has any military record.

I think that Mike Huckabee picks up all states of the South not on the Atlantic coast, and that if he is a VP candidate, he still wins Arkansas if not all other such states. But he has to get the nomination to do that. Romney and Palin have no connections to the South.

I don't know which to believe about Alabama: the 38% vote for Obama, the recent 48% approval rating, or the current 58% approval rating.  An average suggests a toss-up. Nebraska? At-large, Nebraska was in between South Dakota and Kansas, and the 62% approval rating for NE-02 suggests a gain in NE-01. Districts of Nebraska are shown left-to-right with an increasing number to the right, which is geographically absurd for Nebraska. NE-03 is one of the most right-wing congressional districts in America, and I have it as "Strong (generic) Republican". It offers the surest electoral vote or votes for a generic Republican. NE-01? More GOP-leaning than NE-02, but Nebraska went for McCain only by 13%, and NE-03 went for something like thirty. NE-01 and NE at large are thus undecided.

Of course it looks very hopeful for Obama, suggesting an Eisenhower-scale, if not Reagan-scale or LBJ-scale, landslide in 2012. It suggests that Obama will win everything that he won in 2008 except Colorado at least firmly, and everything that was close. The southern states are daring.

 

 

[pbrower2a]

That's a very hopeful map for Obama.

I agree. There's about a zero chance that Obama wins states like LA (lol), TN, KY, WV or the western district of NE. AR is also unwinnable. SD and ND are becoming more favorable, but still lean Republican. But a Huckabee has a greater chance to lose them than, let's say a Romney has.

Utah at less than 5% margin for Republican - I thought that was just crazy.

So do I -- but Obama's most recent approval rating in Utah was above 50%.

Mitt Romney will absolutely crush Obama in Utah even if Obama has a 60% approval rating there. But I can see Obama winning Utah against Huckabee, Palin, or especially Gingrich. The Mormons pay much attention to "family values" -- and so far those of Obama look far better than those of Palin or Gingrich (or for that matter Bill Clinton). As for Huckabee -- he has said some nasty things about the LDS Church, and Obama hasn't.

We don't know who will be the 2012 GOP nominee for President, do we? We don't even know whether there will be a strong third-party candidate, do we?

[pbrower2a]

OBAMA IS NOT WINNING UTAH UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. NONE. ZILCH.

Disagree
If Huckabee is the nominee, it will be close. If Obama's approval ratings are above 60%, and Huckabee is the Republican nominee, Obama will carry the state. Romney would barely get 60% under that scenario.

I'm sorry but you are wrong, dead wrong. Please try again.

I'm dead right. Mormons hate Huckabee. Many will stay home on election day. The whole southwest is trending Democrat. A strong Obama term + Huckabee as the Republican nominee = Utah going Democrat

That may be what my map indicates.  Who runs shapes the voting of individual states, if not regional blocks. I can imagine Utah voters voting for Obama as a protest against someone disrespectful of the LDS Church or the sensibilities of LDS members. Could an active alcoholic  win Utah as a Republican? I think not. Could a serial spouse-cheater win in Utah? Perhaps not. Someone nutty? Utah rejected Goldwater.

Utah is not a difficult state in which to campaign; if it had any chance of voting Democratic in 2008, then Obama's style of campaign would be well suited to the state and he would have been there often. Obama loves publicity and large crowds more easily obtained in big cities and their suburbs than in isolated rural areas.  Utah is easy to get to and get around -- at least between Logan and Provo, an area that contains about 90% of the population. The Salt Lake City television market covers practically the entire state through feeds throughout the state. Obama could make a speech or two supporting religious tolerance while praising Mormon community (they take care of themselves) in Salt Lake City, Ogden, and Provo.

That hardly indicates that Utah becomes a Democratic haven -- far from it. It could be a one-time event. But it does put forth a warning to candidates of all political types: if you want Utah to vote for you, then at the least respect the LDS Church and community or expect to lose Utah!

[pbrower2a]

My point exactly. We could use another Josh22 though.

What's your point?
The only reason I was so conservative when I got on here was because I've been brainwashed by my Dad for the past 15 years of my life. He thinks Democrats had planned on Gore winning in 2000, and had already paid terrorists to bomb the World Trade Centers so Democrats would look strong on National Security. Thanks to some people on here, I've becomed more open-minded, and have reversed my position on some key issues.

It isn't easy to get away from a conspiracy-theory cult. What your father did -- in trying to get you in on such a cult -- is inexcusable. I find it troublesome enough that some believe that Dubya had a role in the attacks on 9/11... and I despise Dubya.

One of the great ironies was that after the 1993 bombing of the WTC the United States had arrested the key figures who eventually were convicted, whereupon they now languish in a federal Supermax. Likewise the Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania (governments extraditing the killers and plotters to the United States because the embassies are under US legal authority). We are still out to get Usama bin Laden and his henchmen. 

[pbrower2a]

I'm pretty sure those who think Obama has no chance in Utah thought the same thing about Indiana last year...

Well, probably.  If they didn't think Obama would win in Indiana, then why would they suddenly give him a chance in Utah?

Obama wins Utah only in the best of scenarios.  Huge economic recovery, a new era of good feelings, and only against Mike Huckabee (this is why Huckabee must not get the nomination).  If the economy hasn't recovered, no way in hell Utah goes for Obama, or most other states for that matter.

Huckabee is the only candidate who can win a bunch of southern states. Arkansas alone is at least as big a prize than Utah. 

Obama is the only Democratic politician not from Indiana who could win Indiana. Everything went right for Obama, and he still barely won Indiana.   

The economy needs not fully recover for Obama to win in 2012 -- big. The economy hadn't fully recovered for FDR in 1936, either, and he won in a landslide.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Because the Republicans have no candidate who has no regional weaknesses that prevents Obama by winning re-election simply by winning every state that he won by at least 9%  and one other state. Pick Romney and Obama picks up at least one Southern state. Pick Huckabee and Obama wins a few more northern states. Pick Palin and lose... Ohio. Pick Gingrich and Obama wins an Eisenhower landslide.

[pbrower2a]

I'm pretty sure those who think Obama has no chance in Utah thought the same thing about Indiana last year...

Well, probably.  If they didn't think Obama would win in Indiana, then why would they suddenly give him a chance in Utah?

Obama wins Utah only in the best of scenarios.  Huge economic recovery, a new era of good feelings, and only against Mike Huckabee (this is why Huckabee must not get the nomination).  If the economy hasn't recovered, no way in hell Utah goes for Obama, or most other states for that matter.

Huckabee is the only candidate who can win a bunch of southern states. Arkansas alone is at least as big a prize than Utah. 

Obama is the only Democratic politician not from Indiana who could win Indiana. Everything went right for Obama, and he still barely won Indiana.   

The economy needs not fully recover for Obama to win in 2012 -- big. The economy hadn't fully recovered for FDR in 1936, either, and he won in a landslide.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the Republicans have no candidate who has no regional weaknesses that prevents Obama by winning re-election simply by winning every state that he won by at least 9%  and one other state. Pick Romney and Obama picks up at least one Southern state. Pick Huckabee and Obama wins a few more northern states. Pick Palin and lose... Ohio. Pick Gingrich and Obama wins an Eisenhower landslide.

Pray tell what "southern" state would Romney lose. McCain wasn't exactly southern himself.

Virginia (which might not be particularly Southern anymore, but it would be enough)
Florida
North Carolina
Georgia (heavy military presence helped McCain as it won't help Romney)

So far I can't see Obama losing Virginia to any imaginable GOP candidate in 2012 except in the aftermath of political disaster, category self-inflicted.

.... Anything else beyond those indicates a landslide.

I see no indication that Romney can win as much of the poor white vote as did McCain -- a large vote in the South, and one critical to GOP success in recent years. Romney is just as much a d@mnyankee as Obama, but in 2012 Obama will be the d@mnyankee that they know. Besides, if Obama does good for poor Southern blacks, he will also do good for poor Southern whites.  He will be running for re-election as President -- not to be some white person's in-law.

Mitt Romney will have to explain his religion; Joe Lieberman had to do that, too, and that didn't help Gore in 2000. Mormonism is about as exotic in the South as is Judaism.

[pbrower2a]

Allowing a distinction for Congressional districts in Maine and Nebraska:

 I round up 6-9 to the next ten for anything above 55%, so that may be some difference. .

[pbrower2a]

While I find the idea of Obama winning Georgia and Utah unlikely, I was one of the people in 2007 who disregarded polls that had "Generic Democrat" defeating "Generic Republican" by something like 10 points.

Obama may have net positive support in both states, but it's difficult to tell how strong it would be once the country is in election mode.

Indeed the model may grossly understate the chance that Obama wins some states as much as it grossly overestimates a reasonable assessment of the chance of Obama winning such states as Utah or Alabama. I think that Obama has more of a chance to win Colorado (he did in 2008, of course) than some states in which the most recent poll gives Obama as much as a 60% or so approval rating. Likewise Arizona, where the demographics suggest that Obama would have won Arizona against any GOP nominee other than McCain. I think that he even has more of a chance of winning Texas than of winning Utah...

I can think of circumstances in which Obama wins Utah -- circumstances far from having materialized, of course.

But if Obama is getting strong positive approval in a bunch of Southern states, then that suggests that unless the GOP nominates someone with an obvious connection to the region (the area seems almost homogeneous in its politics, then the GOP stands to lose more of the South than Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. Let's remember that Obama got clobbered in Southern states not on the Atlantic Coast -- not that the GOP nominee won't need Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida.

If I were a GOP figure trying to win the Presidency from Obama, then I would find his approval ratings portending a huge loss in 2012. Think about the Mid-South; although no state is individually a big prize (Georgia isn't in that group), the group itself holds 38 electoral votes if one excludes Kentucky. Should Obama win most of that group (which includes unpolled Mississippi), then Obama surely wins Kentucky and Missouri as well... and with no other major changes for Obama, that suggests an Eisenhower-scale landslide. Other than that the only hope for a GOP win of the Presidency is something going very bad for Obama.

God help us if that catastrophe involves North Korea.   

[pbrower2a]

pbrower2a, approval ratings doesn't mean votes. Get that, and stop trying to say because someone approves of Obama they will vote for him.

It is more my temptation to see the 2008 vote as an approval rating of sorts.

So far those ratings are all that we have. Surely some of us would take notice if Obama had approval ratings of 35% in North Carolina or 52% in New York State; such would indicate huge trouble. Approval isn't the same as a "vote for". Obama would lose to Romney in Utah even with an approval rating of 65% and to Huckabee in Arkansas with a similar approval rating in Arkansas. George Herbert Walker Bush had fairly high approval ratings going into the 1992 election; those of his son were mediocre. Go figure.

I see this: those who disapprove of the performance of an incumbent President are unlikely to vote for him unless the opponent has the perception of a bird commonly served as dinner on Thanksgiving Day.

Who gets the GOP nomination will decide whether Obama wins certain states... and with statewide approval ratings as they are, the nominee may win some in contest and lose some in contest. I see no evidence that Obama is vulnerable in any State that he won in 2008 by at least 5%, and winning those states would be enough in 2012.  He will disappoint people with some of his choices.

This may be a more important question: can Obama maintain these approval ratings? If he can't, then how much can he lose and still win?

Huge differences exist for approval ratings between Obama and all four of these GOP candidates: Huckabee, Palin, Romney, and Gingrich. When asked to choose whether one would choose Obama over one or the other, then people nationwide answer the nationwide "would you vote for him/her?" is in the 50's for Obama and that for the Republican is in the 30's. Among the Republicans, Huckabee does best... with about 40% of the likely vote, and Gingrich does very badly -- in the mid-30s. Romney and Palin are somewhere in between. "Don't know" is as high as 10% or so.

It now looks as if Obama would beat any of them handily -- maybe not with 60% of the vote except perhaps against Gingrich. Of course that says nothing about such people as Tom Ridge and Bobby Jindal who are not offered as alternatives.

[pbrower2a]

Change in two states (MI, down for Obama; RI, up):

[pbrower2a]

Change in two states (MI, down for Obama; RI, up):

Removed the numbers to make the smaller states easier to see.

Thank you; that was a good idea. We don't know what the electoral vote counts will be for individual states. 

[pbrower2a]

Do you believe anything you say? Or do you just try to paint the rosiest picture possible for your candidate?

No, I do not believe it fully. Note that I have qualifications in my prediction.

Obama could lose a state or two in which he has a 55%-60% approval rating, but he won't lose a raft of them. He's not going to win Oklahoma, where his approval rating is in the thirties. But it is clear that the Blue Firewall is intact, at least according to opinion polls, and Obama will have to have a catastrophic Presidency to lose it. He is above 60% approval in every state that he won by 9% or more... except Maine, Vermont, Maryland, DC, and Hawaii.  Do you want to bet that if polls came out from any of those that they wouldn't show approval ratings above 60%?  Such is how they voted.

What can't I predict? Obama's approval ratings in November 2012 will determine whether he wins or loses.  What could be simpler? If he is effective and does good he wins. How much? Who knows? Should he be an effective President and face a GOP who either has serious flaws as a campaigner, can be depicted as an extremist, or can be linked to some corruption, then Obama wins in a landslide. I could have said the same of Nixon in 1969 or Reagan in 1981. Should Obama fail as President, then we will see that in approval ratings.  Can he fail as President? He has plenty of time in which to do so. 

We just can't know, can we?  I can't predict who the GOP nominee could be in 2012 except that it won't be "Generic Republican", as nobody goes by that name. If it is Huckabee, then Huckabee will likely win the whole South except perhaps Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. Romney fares better in some states unlikely to matter in 2012, but unless Obama has an inept Presidency that only means that the votes even out between the states -- giving Obama a landslide in the Electoral College even with a 52-47 split of the popular vote (I figure that Romney would do badly in the South). It gets worse for Palin and Gingrich. Romney would do better than Huckabee in Montana and the Dakotas and might shave Obama's margins of victory in some Northern states -- only to gain little in electoral votes. 

Maybe the most effective GOP nominee would be Charlie Crist or Tom Ridge. I don't know; I have seen no differential polls discerning whether Obama is more popular than either.

The 2012 prediction is about as serious as pre-season predictions of baseball pennant races. In February they can freely predict that the Baltimore Orioles have the New Mickey Mantle ... and by May we find that that prospect so praised in February has so many holes in his swing that he is hitting .225 with 3 home runs, makes lots of errors in the field, has been benched, and by June is back in the minors. In October people have other things in mind in baseball, like the playoffs and the World Series, and if the Orioles lost 95 games in the regular season, nobody cares. Baseball fans in places like St. Louis may be paying attention to a .275-hitting shortstop and a sinkerball pitcher who has been around for twelve years.

OK -- I base my map on an assumption that the 2008 election says much about Barack Obama as a campaigner and a politician. Incumbency is a an overpowering asset to a President who seems to do the job well even if his Presidency has induced "hidden damage" that can do great harm to America. If everything remains the same in 2012 as in 2008, then Obama probably ends up with a victory similar in scale to that of 2008.

Of course things will be different -- McCain won't be running in 2012, the economy is in a condition unlikely to be frozen until 2012, and there will be international events. The best evidence of change in events will be approval polls -- and if Obama were getting approvals around 47% in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania with 49% disapproval, then I would show those states as likely losses for Obama. But what can I do if Obama has an approval rating of 58% in Alabama? That suggests change in political realities in Alabama.

I find it hard to believe that Obama is doing so well in the South -- but the polls are consistent, and if those for a bunch of states similar in political tendencies concur, then I have no cause to believe otherwise. If Obama's approval remains as it is in those states, then he has no chance of losing them by double-digit margins in 2012 as he did in 2008. Sure, it's counter-intuitive -- but truth is often counter-intuitive. Obama will be running on his record in 2012 and not on promises.

Contrast Oklahoma, where Obama's approval rating is in the thirties. My prediction map shows Obama getting clobbered there no matter who the GOP nominee is. Mississippi? It looks better for the GOP than any other Southern state -- only because it hasn't been polled.

My model (a/k/a predictive map) suggests that Obama would lose Arizona and barely scrape by in Colorado -- also counter-intuitive.  Models do that at times.

... In any event the so-called Blue Firewall is intact, with Obama likely to have 290 (which in this model includes Virginia, Nevada, and Ohio among them) or so electoral votes locked up barring catastrophe. That will be enough for a close win, and the rest will at most shape the "character" of the win. For the GOP to get its Presidential nominee elected in 2012, much must change, including the proclivity of eighteen states and DC to vote indiscriminately for Democratic nominees in every Presidential election after 1988.

Also, there will be some interesting Senate races in 2010.  Florida and Ohio have open seats, and apparently Senators  Vitter (R-LA), Thune (R-SD), Murkowski (R-AK), and Bunning (R-KY) will have difficult times defending their seats. The only Democratic Senator in apparent difficulty is Bennet (D-CO). We will have a much better indication how some of those states will vote in 2012 -- in November 2010.  We will also have more arguments, too.   

   

[pbrower2a]

Obama's approval ratings in November 2012 will determine whether he wins or loses.

Wrong.  Approval ratings have no direct relationship with the percentage of the vote a candidate gets.  This is completely different than predicting baseball because there are no absolute precedents, just relative precedents.  In politics there is no such thing as definite causation.  You can never predict the future in politics because even if you were to somehow know what Obama is going to do and how people have reacted to that in the past, it will never be the same as anything that has happened.  There are too many variables.  That's why peoples' predictions on election day are sometimes wildly off.  Predicting now, especially based on approval ratings, is the most asinine and ridiculous notion in politics.  There is no other reason but hackery to seriously suggest that Obama will win West Virginia, Kentucky, and Louisiana.

I have shown their limitations in my response -- and I have stated that anything can change. Some changes are more likely than others.

I have explained West Virginia, where Obama now has an approval rating around 60%. Do you argue with that rating?

If anything, my model suggests that the GOP has more chance of getting  trounced in the 2012 Presidential race than of winning, and that should be a fair warning: expend efforts elsewhere, especially in grass-roots efforts to win city council seats and county-wide elections -- and of course to distance itself as much as possible from ideological stances no longer popular and no longer achievable. 

[pbrower2a]

That WV poll was taking right after Obama took office. You are just a Democratic hack who twist thing to make Obama look better. Next you will be saying Obama will become King and take over the world.

My model is flexible. It's worth noting that the commercial polls of early November 2008 got things right. Getting Indiana, North Carolina, Montana, and Missouri wrong wasn't much of a mistake because the polls recognized that predictions for those states were within the margin of error.  As a rule they got the rest right.

Earlier ones seemed to get things as they were at the time.  My model should be recognized for what it says and what it didn't say. I don't predict how things will be in 2012, but I can pick some sure paths of failure for the GOP in 2012 -- like cleaving to ideologies associated with Rove, Cheney, Dubya, DeLay, and the like.

If Obama should fail -- then I have created a model that can illustrate that.

[pbrower2a]

Obama support down to 62% in Pennsylvania:

[pbrower2a]

Mississippi and North Dakota would be interesting, too.

[pbrower2a]

Just like Carter!  Good path to be following.

Obama's political skills (including his ability to get his point across) better resemble those of Ronald Reagan than those of Jimmy Carter. Carter barely became President, defeating a weak incumbent.

[pbrower2a]

I love how liberals hate Reagan, but always want to compare themselves to him.

We may have despised much of what Ronald Reagan stood for, but we find his techniques more effective -- and less troublesome -- than those of Dubya.

[pbrower2a]

The most recent poll for Alabama shows a 58% approval rating. That may be counter-intuitive.

[pbrower2a]

Here is the poll, like it or not. I am not familiar with the polling agency, but until someone discredits it I go with it, just as I go with some polls that suggest that Colorado is weak in support for Obama:

Alabama (Anzalone-Liszt Research (D) for Artur Davis, 600 LV, May 5-9)

"58 percent of voters approve of Obama's performance, including 46 percent of white voters.  In addition, 87 percent of white Democrats and 57 percent of independents approve of Obama’s performance."

http://www.arturdavis2010.com/release_details.asp?id=65

Interesting, because the last Alabama poll by SUSA (600 adults) had Obama at only 48%.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c643766a-9eb3-42a5-a1ce-38215e0aa02b

It's almost a month old, but one poll a month from Alabama is about the most that anyone can expect.

[pbrower2a]

Here is the poll, like it or not. I am not familiar with the polling agency, but until someone discredits it I go with it, just as I go with some polls that suggest that Colorado is weak in support for Obama:

Alabama (Anzalone-Liszt Research (D) for Artur Davis, 600 LV, May 5-9)

"58 percent of voters approve of Obama's performance, including 46 percent of white voters.  In addition, 87 percent of white Democrats and 57 percent of independents approve of Obama’s performance."

http://www.arturdavis2010.com/release_details.asp?id=65

Interesting, because the last Alabama poll by SUSA (600 adults) had Obama at only 48%.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c643766a-9eb3-42a5-a1ce-38215e0aa02b

It's almost a month old, but one poll a month from Alabama is about the most that anyone can expect.

Artur Davis is running for a Congressional seat in 2010 as a Democrat.

[pbrower2a]

Two polls for NJ today, 59% and 60% approval:

[pbrower2a]

Two polls for NJ today, 59% and 60% approval:

It would be interesting to see some more polls for Southern states.

[pbrower2a]

Those approval ratings are getting old, and they surprise me even more than do the astonishingly-high approval ratings for Obama in much of the South. The state most similar to either of them in politics (Nevada) gives a strong positive approval for Obama.

Obama would probably lose Colorado with a 50-50 split of the popular vote, but win Arizona, which McCain won by a margin smaller than the usual benefit of a Favorite Son effect. 

[pbrower2a]

Sorry, but you can't be "right" polling approval ratings. There's no such thing. It's something that cannot be verified.

For some reason his approval and issue polling usually comes out around five to ten points more favorable to Republicans than other polling. 

He uses a Likely Voters, while others poll adults.

"Likely Voters" implies those who voted in the previous election. Some of the voters of 2012 are now only 14 years old. Should the youth vote behave differently from the rest of the vote, then an approval rating can badly distort the likely vote.