The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44, -1.

Disapprove 54%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 20%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, -2.

And Gallup, meh:

Approve:  43%

Disapprove:  49%

[krazen1211]

Obama under 50% in Illinois

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/politics/illinois-obama-approval-rating-poll-romney-home-state-perry-cain-presidential-2012-reelection-20111003

Do you approve of the job President Obama is doing?

Approve: 49.81%
Disapprove: 46.23%
Neutral: 3.96%

If the election were held today and the candidates were Obama and Christie, for whom would you vote?

Obama: 52.69%
Christie: 33.89%
Unsure: 13.42%
Obama or Cain?

Obama: 52.85%
Cain: 30.36%
Unsure: 16.79%
Obama or Perry?

Obama: 52.35%
Perry: 30.20%
Unsure: 17.46%
Obama or Romney?

Obama: 50.26%
Romney: 34.79%
Unsure: 14.95%
 Downstate voters rate Obama job performance:

Approve: 39%
Disapprove: 57%
Suburban ("collar") county voters rate Obama job performance:

Approve: 43%
Disapprove: 55%



Good to see those deep negatives in the collar counties.

[Minnesota Mike]

Obama under 50% in Illinois

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/politics/illinois-obama-approval-rating-poll-romney-home-state-perry-cain-presidential-2012-reelection-20111003

Do you approve of the job President Obama is doing?

Approve: 49.81%
Disapprove: 46.23%
Neutral: 3.96%

If the election were held today and the candidates were Obama and Christie, for whom would you vote?

Obama: 52.69%
Christie: 33.89%
Unsure: 13.42%
Obama or Cain?

Obama: 52.85%
Cain: 30.36%
Unsure: 16.79%
Obama or Perry?

Obama: 52.35%
Perry: 30.20%
Unsure: 17.46%
Obama or Romney?

Obama: 50.26%
Romney: 34.79%
Unsure: 14.95%
 Downstate voters rate Obama job performance:

Approve: 39%
Disapprove: 57%
Suburban ("collar") county voters rate Obama job performance:

Approve: 43%
Disapprove: 55%



Good to see those deep negatives in the collar counties.

A poll down to 1/100th of 1 percent?  Ok.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

and not a single GOPer over 35%... approvals mean nothing when you're against this bunch.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44, u.

Disapprove 54%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 19%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, +1.

[freepcrusher]

Obama under 50% in Illinois

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/politics/illinois-obama-approval-rating-poll-romney-home-state-perry-cain-presidential-2012-reelection-20111003

Do you approve of the job President Obama is doing?

Approve: 49.81%
Disapprove: 46.23%
Neutral: 3.96%

If the election were held today and the candidates were Obama and Christie, for whom would you vote?

Obama: 52.69%
Christie: 33.89%
Unsure: 13.42%
Obama or Cain?

Obama: 52.85%
Cain: 30.36%
Unsure: 16.79%
Obama or Perry?

Obama: 52.35%
Perry: 30.20%
Unsure: 17.46%
Obama or Romney?

Obama: 50.26%
Romney: 34.79%
Unsure: 14.95%
 Downstate voters rate Obama job performance:

Approve: 39%
Disapprove: 57%
Suburban ("collar") county voters rate Obama job performance:

Approve: 43%
Disapprove: 55%



Good to see those deep negatives in the collar counties.

your point being what? Obama still wins the state under your poll.

[Ben Romney]

Do you think Barack Obama should be re-elected president or do you think it's time to elect a new person to do better?" - voters in this crucial 2012 battleground state chose anybody-but-Obama by a margin of 50-43 percent



From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20111005/MIVIEW/110040433/Mitchell-poll--Michigan-wants--Not-Obama-#ixzz1ZujWq4Rx

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 42, -2.

Disapprove 56%, +2.

"Strongly Approve" is at 19%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 43%, u.


It is a very bad sign for Obama when his Approve number is lower than his Strongly Disapprove number.  This might, however, just be a bad sample.

[Tender Branson]

Gallup:

41-52 [-1, +2]

PPP/DailyKos/SEIU:

41-54 [-1, nc]

http://dailykos.com/weeklypolling/2011/9/29

[CJK]

Obama Average Approval Rating September 2011 (Gallup)

41% Approve

51% Disapprove

Trends for comparison:

Roosevelt: 56/37 (September 1939)

Truman: 55/29 (September 1947) AND 32/54 (September 1951)

Eisenhower: 71/16 (September 1955)

Kennedy: 56/30 (September 1963)

Johnson: 38/48 (September 1967)

Nixon: No poll

Ford: 45/38 (September 1975)

Carter: 33/54 (September 1979)

Reagan: 47/43 (September 1983)

Bush I: 68/23 (September 1991)

Clinton: 46/44 (September 1995)

Bush II: 51/45 (September 2003)

[labred82]

He needs to be at least around 45% or so by the end of this year.

[Tender Branson]

Quinnipiac University Poll:

41% Approve
55% Disapprove

From September 27 - October 3, Quinnipiac University surveyed 2,118 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.1 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1657

[Skill and Chance]

Obama Average Approval Rating September 2011 (Gallup)

41% Approve

51% Disapprove

Trends for comparison:

Roosevelt: 56/37 (September 1939)

Truman: 55/29 (September 1947) AND 32/54 (September 1951)

Eisenhower: 71/16 (September 1955)

Kennedy: 56/30 (September 1963)

Johnson: 38/48 (September 1967)

Nixon: No poll

Ford: 45/38 (September 1975)

Carter: 33/54 (September 1979)

Reagan: 47/43 (September 1983)

Bush I: 68/23 (September 1991)

Clinton: 46/44 (September 1995)

Bush II: 51/45 (September 2003)

So Truman must have really cratered in the spring of 1948 to be in the 30's in June?

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 42, u.

Disapprove 56%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 19%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 43%, u.


Bad sample?

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 42, u.

Disapprove 57%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 20%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 43%, u.

If this is not a bad sample, Obama's Disapprove number has gone up 4 points in a week.

If this is a bad sample, it should drop tomorrow.  Two things to look at on tomorrow's poll:

A.  Is Disapprove below 56%?

B.  Is Strongly Disapprove still higher than Approve?

Either, or both, could indicate a strong decline in Obama's numbers.

[krazen1211]

Obama under 50% in Illinois

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/politics/illinois-obama-approval-rating-poll-romney-home-state-perry-cain-presidential-2012-reelection-20111003

Do you approve of the job President Obama is doing?

Approve: 49.81%
Disapprove: 46.23%
Neutral: 3.96%

If the election were held today and the candidates were Obama and Christie, for whom would you vote?

Obama: 52.69%
Christie: 33.89%
Unsure: 13.42%
Obama or Cain?

Obama: 52.85%
Cain: 30.36%
Unsure: 16.79%
Obama or Perry?

Obama: 52.35%
Perry: 30.20%
Unsure: 17.46%
Obama or Romney?

Obama: 50.26%
Romney: 34.79%
Unsure: 14.95%
 Downstate voters rate Obama job performance:

Approve: 39%
Disapprove: 57%
Suburban ("collar") county voters rate Obama job performance:

Approve: 43%
Disapprove: 55%



Good to see those deep negatives in the collar counties.

your point being what? Obama still wins the state under your poll.

The GOP has a much better chance of winning the non Chicago congressional districts if Obama is stinky there.

[The Vorlon]

Obama Average Approval Rating September 2011 (Gallup)

41% Approve

51% Disapprove

Trends for comparison:

Presidents with positive approvals:

Eisenhower: 71/16 (September 1955) Net = +55 - Won Re-election
Bush I: 68/23 (September 1991) - Net = +45 - Defeated For re-election
Truman: 55/29 (September 1947) Net = + 26 - Won Re-election (Media coverage not withstanding)
Roosevelt: 56/37 (September 1939) Net = + 19% - Won Re-election
Ford: 45/38 (September 1975) - Net = +10 - Defeated For re-election
Bush II: 51/45 (September 2003) - Net = +6 - Re-elected
Reagan: 47/43 (September 1983) - Net = +4 - Re-elected
Clinton: 46/44 (September 1995) - Net = +2 - Re-elected

Presidents with negative approvals:

Johnson: 38/48 (September 1967) Net = - 10 "If Nominated I will not run, if Elected I will not serve"
Obama: 41/51 (September 2011) - Net = -10 - TBA
Carter: 33/54 (September 1979) - Net = - 21 - Defeated for Re-election
Truman: 32/54 (September 1951) Net = -22 - Did Not seek second Full Term




For a president to be deeply underwater seems to predict not getting another term, - though Carter was the only one who actually choose to face the electorate.

Having a positive approval rating, while clearly better than having a negative one, is no guarantee of re-election, though one could argue that Bush I was unusual (Post Gulf War 1 afterglow) and also Ford (Post Nixon "let the healing begin" Honeymoon)  had "distorted" approval ratings  14 months out from their re-election bids.*

Gerald Ford - Only President to ever become president without having been elected as either President or Vice President (Became VP when Spiro Agnew resigned as VP)

[J. J.]

I have been looking at the 18 month/12 month period prior to the election. 

The one with the lowest low number to win reelection was Clinton in 1996; he had 42% approval in January 1996.

The one with the highest low number to lose reelection was Ford, with a low of 39% in December 1975.

Note that GHWB's collapsed in the spring of 1992 and I think he bottomed at 29%.

I've generally thought that if Obama consistently got below 40%, it could be over.

Incumbents due tend to bounce back a lot closer.  Carter's 12 month low prior to the election was 31% and he gained about 9 points.  Reagan was at 43% in May of 1983 and gained about 16 points.

[BigSkyBob]

I have been looking at the 18 month/12 month period prior to the election. 

The one with the lowest low number to win reelection was Clinton in 1996; he had 42% approval in January 1996.

The one with the highest low number to lose reelection was Ford, with a low of 39% in December 1975.

Note that GHWB's collapsed in the spring of 1992 and I think he bottomed at 29%.

I've generally thought that if Obama consistently got below 40%, it could be over.

Incumbents due tend to bounce back a lot closer.  Carter's 12 month low prior to the election was 31% and he gained about 9 points.  Reagan was at 43% in May of 1983 and gained about 16 points.

But, prior Presidents took their pain early and timed the peak of attempts to stimulate the economy to coincide with an election year. Obama tried to avoid the pain early, and is mired in a Japanese-style slump as a result.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

I have been looking at the 18 month/12 month period prior to the election. 

The one with the lowest low number to win reelection was Clinton in 1996; he had 42% approval in January 1996.

It should be noted that this was a major outlier from Gallup; network polls from roughly the same period showed Clinton at 50% and 53% (scroll down), though it declined into the high forties later in the month (second gov't shutdown?).

[pbrower2a]

I have been looking at the 18 month/12 month period prior to the election. 

The one with the lowest low number to win reelection was Clinton in 1996; he had 42% approval in January 1996.

The one with the highest low number to lose reelection was Ford, with a low of 39% in December 1975.

Note that GHWB's collapsed in the spring of 1992 and I think he bottomed at 29%.

I've generally thought that if Obama consistently got below 40%, it could be over.

Incumbents due tend to bounce back a lot closer.  Carter's 12 month low prior to the election was 31% and he gained about 9 points.  Reagan was at 43% in May of 1983 and gained about 16 points.

But, prior Presidents took their pain early and timed the peak of attempts to stimulate the economy to coincide with an election year. Obama tried to avoid the pain early, and is mired in a Japanese-style slump as a result.

Different scenario. President Obama came in when a full-blown economic meltdown reminiscent in many ways of that that began in September 1929. He addressed it by the book. The meltdown that had begun in September 2007 came to an end in the equivalent of February or March 1931 instead of in the equivalent of late 1933.

The appropriate comparisons are to the 1930s and not to any later times. President Obama would have approval ratings in the teens by now had he taken deflationary measures at the start of his administration... but that would be the least of anyone's problems, especially with even higher unemployment, a far greater number of corporate failures, and huge.reductions in living standards. The get-rich-quick schemes that marked American economic life from about 1981 to 2007 can no longer work.  

[J. J.]

I have been looking at the 18 month/12 month period prior to the election. 

The one with the lowest low number to win reelection was Clinton in 1996; he had 42% approval in January 1996.

The one with the highest low number to lose reelection was Ford, with a low of 39% in December 1975.

Note that GHWB's collapsed in the spring of 1992 and I think he bottomed at 29%.

I've generally thought that if Obama consistently got below 40%, it could be over.

Incumbents due tend to bounce back a lot closer.  Carter's 12 month low prior to the election was 31% and he gained about 9 points.  Reagan was at 43% in May of 1983 and gained about 16 points.

But, prior Presidents took their pain early and timed the peak of attempts to stimulate the economy to coincide with an election year. Obama tried to avoid the pain early, and is mired in a Japanese-style slump as a result.

Those numbers were all in the 18 months prior to the election.  I'm comparing apples to apples.

It should be noted that this was a major outlier from Gallup; network polls from roughly the same period showed Clinton at 50% and 53% (scroll down), though it declined into the high forties later in the month (second gov't shutdown?).

That 39% for Ford could have been an outllier as well.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

That 39% for Ford could have been an outllier as well.

Possibly; I know that Carter actually went below 20% in some polls (as did Bush in '08), but Gallup doesn't seem to reflect that.

[The Vorlon]

 The get-rich-quick schemes that marked American economic life from about  1963  1981 to 2007 2011 can no longer work.  

I corrected your typos for you













1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

[pbrower2a]

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Source?

1. You create misery by legislation that eases the transfer of wealth to a few at the expense of everyone else.

2. Did you ever hear of disability insurance?

3. As if the government were the economic equivalent of a black hole. Government might not create wealth directly, but it might facilitate wealth with the creation of value. Wealth that does not flow, unless it creates wealth, does little good.

4. Have you ever heard of the marginal utility of income? A thousand dollars might do much good for some pauper with rotting teeth, but little for someone who owns millions of dollars.

5. Wealth created with the aid of the lash or under the threat of the noose is a sham.