The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 04, 2021, 12:08:59 AM
News: EV Calculator updated with new apportionment numbers, custom labels, orange party color and more. Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 117 118 119 120 121 [122] 123 124 125 126 127 ... 410
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1082768 times)
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,114
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3025 on: November 22, 2009, 03:32:25 AM »
« edited: November 22, 2009, 03:47:56 AM by pbrower2a »

Iowa? I average two polls (one "adults" and one "likely voters")  from one of my favorite sources (Selzer). Who now knows who the likely voters of 2012 are almost three years away from the election, though? Indiana checks in, and even if Obama is above 50% disapproval, it's not by much there. Both Iowa and Indiana are virtual ties, and I go by the same rules that I have been going on in presenting the two states on the approval/disapproval map. We don't get many polls from Indiana, so as the adage goes, beggars can't be choosers:




The Republicans are not going to win the Presidential election in 2012 if they get less than 52% of the vote in Indiana (barring a third party candidate).

If I were starting the map anew I would go by margins instead of by percentages, but it might be too late to do so in this forum. I'd probably use a very pale shade for a margin of less than 4%. shown as it would look (but only for Indiana and Iowa on this one):




Of course, if you'd like to see me do things that way (4% is a usual margin of error in polling), then suggest so. I'm not going back to make the modification for earlier polls, though.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,115
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3026 on: November 22, 2009, 03:51:24 AM »

You shouldn't include Indiana in your map at all:

A) It was done for the DEM Party of Indiana.

B) Only 20 Legislative Districts were polled. Indiana has 50 Senate and 100 House districts. It`s not representative of the state.

C) Obama`s numbers are favorables, not approval ratings.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 43,164
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3027 on: November 22, 2009, 04:36:10 AM »

Plus it's favorability rather than job approval.  Though pbrower seems to be oblivious to that distinction....

Indiana checks in, and even if Obama is above 50% disapproval, it's not by much there.

Lol.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,114
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3028 on: November 22, 2009, 10:02:15 AM »
« Edited: November 22, 2009, 11:59:06 AM by pbrower2a »

You shouldn't include Indiana in your map at all:

A) It was done for the DEM Party of Indiana.

B) Only 20 Legislative Districts were polled. Indiana has 50 Senate and 100 House districts. It`s not representative of the state.

C) Obama`s numbers are favorables, not approval ratings.

A) Not so obvious.

It was leaked, and it seems reasonable enough in view of results from neighboring states. If the GOP had one I would show it because Indiana is polled so rarely.If the Republicans came out with a seemingly-honest poll, then I might have to average it in  or, if it comes out a bit later than that, even allow it to supplant this one.

Ask yourself this: why would the Democrats want anything other than an objective poll of support for Obama in Indiana?

B) Exit polls can be done on far less.

C) I work with what I have.

What would I reject?

I haven't been rejecting Rasmussen polls because they go through the network that calls itself "Fair and Balanced". I would reject an "interactive" poll (some club could flood a pollster with votes), one soliciting the votes of members of a group (party members only, a union, a gun-rights group, an ethnic group, a gay-rights group, or a veteran's organization), or a non-statewide poll  that applies only to one area other than a congressional district that gets a vote (one of the two Congressional districts of Maine or one of three Congressional districts of Nebraska -- but not, let us say, "Greater Indianapolis"). For example, I have not used polls for New York City. Registered Democrats in Oklahoma would surely give a strong positive opinion of Obama, and registered Republicans in New York would give a strong unfavorable view of the president.

A push poll is of course to be rejected irrespective of the source.

It is relevant that Evan Bayh is doing far better than the President in Indiana. If the GOP wants to leak a similar poll that contrasts Senator Dick Lugar to President Obama, then so be it.  But let's look at the facts about recent polls: one year after he is elected President, Obama has lost too little support to suggest that he is in extreme danger danger of losing a re-election bid in 2012. 

If you want some idea of what is dragging President Obama down, then look no further than this:

President Obama hasn't yet solved every economic problem that Dubya left behind.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,880
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3029 on: November 22, 2009, 04:47:52 PM »

It was leaked...by a Democratic party official.  Intentionally.  With his name attached.  That's not a leak.  That's a press release.  And what incentive would they have to highball Obama?  In the process of getting a sample that shows the Indiana Democrats hanging tough, obviously.

And it's still favorability, which is always quite a bit higher for Obama.  Why are you equalizing the two?
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 43,164
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3030 on: November 22, 2009, 05:07:21 PM »

Ask yourself this: why would the Democrats want anything other than an objective poll of support for Obama in Indiana?

Lol.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rasmussen doesn't poll for Fox.  Opinion Dynamics does.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,114
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3031 on: November 22, 2009, 07:26:11 PM »
« Edited: November 23, 2009, 12:16:13 AM by pbrower2a »

It was leaked...by a Democratic party official.  Intentionally.  With his name attached.  That's not a leak.  That's a press release.  And what incentive would they have to highball Obama?  In the process of getting a sample that shows the Indiana Democrats hanging tough, obviously.

And it's still favorability, which is always quite a bit higher for Obama.  Why are you equalizing the two?

Not that much.

It's all that is available other than someone's seat-of-the-pants guess.  This isn't the "My Guess Entirely on My Intuition or Wishful Thinking" thread.  

I am not rejecting polls unless they have evidence of fabrication or obsolescence, are interactive (and thus subject to manipulation), have built-in bias (as in push polls), or deliberately select an unrepresentative sample of people. It's not a perfect poll, but it is better than nothing, and it is consistent with what most of us know about Indiana -- that under the right circumstances the state can vote for the Democratic nominee for President.

I would have just as easily used a performance poll as a favorability poll. Indiana voted much out of character in 2008 in view of its electoral history, and we just don't see many polls for Indiana. I accept what is available unless it is off the wall.

......

Can't we draw some conclusions about Indiana, nonetheless? The state used to be a lock for the GOP. Kerry and Gore lost the state by large margins. Clinton never won the state even though every state bordering Indiana went for him in both 1992 and 1996 in near-landslide elections. In the close election of 1960, JFK lost the state by a large margin. In an election in which the GOP did very badly (1948), Truman barely lost the state. FDR lost the state in 1940 and 1944 during landslides.  Indiana can go for the Democratic nominee if everything goes right for the Democratic situation and almost everything goes wrong for the Republican -- as in 2008.

Look at the difference between 2008 and most other Presidential elections in Indiana:

1. The statewide economy was in the sewer, and Republicans seem to have gotten the blame.

2. Obama is one of the slickest, shrewdest politicians in American history.

3. Obama is from a neighboring state, and much of Indiana is deluged with Illinois news that has been favorably disposed to him.

4. Obama actively campaigned in Indiana, which Democratic nominees haven't usually done.  

5. The GOP treated Indiana with undue complacency.

6. The state has been approaching the national norm; the state's Senate and Hose delegations are split as evenly as they can be.

7. The Religious Right isn't particularly strong in the state.

The first will no longer be true; either the Indiana economy will be improved, which creates a wild card, or things will be worse, and Democrats will get the blame and Obama will lose. The second and third will surely remain true. The fourth?


Indiana was one of the weakest of Obama's victories in 2008, and it is the state that he is most likely to lose in 2012. He has a lower ceiling for votes in the state than in any of the states that he won. There were times in 2008 in which he seemed to need Indiana; in 2012. such won't be the case. He will either be running to preserve his political life in 2008 in which other states are easier targets, or he will be so far ahead that he won't need to campaign much. Your guess is as good as mine on that.

On the fifth,  I predict that the GOP will be contesting Indiana much more ferociously in 2012, so that may be the difference in 2012.  This thread does not predict how statewide Parties will behave in 2012.   Should  the GOP contest the state in 2012, then the ceiling for Obama might slip to 47% or something like that, and he will abandon his efforts to win the state.

On the sixth and seventh -- look at the Congressional delegation, as evenly split as possible in a state with an odd number of Representatives. Such would be so even if Obama had lost the state. Indiana is a tough state for any Democratic nominee to win, and impossible for many. But Indiana is no longer exempt from the political trends that exist in neighboring states.

The Religious Right, one of the largest sources of reliable GOP voters over the last thirty years or so,  isn't getting any bigger

If I can derive any conclusion from any of this -- it's that the GOP will have to do something to win Indiana next time. It's not the sure thing that it used to be.

Logged
BM
BeccaM
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,261
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3032 on: November 23, 2009, 03:53:03 AM »

Rasmussen and Gallup had equal approval ratings today - 48%. Is that a first?
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,115
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3033 on: November 23, 2009, 03:58:45 AM »

Rasmussen and Gallup had equal approval ratings today - 48%. Is that a first?

No, it happened before that they were on the same level - but only a few times.

The racist fearmonger-bytch Rush Limbaugh thinks Gallup is making up their numbers by increasing the "Black sample" to keep Obama above 50% (too bad they have him below 50 now):

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_111909/content/01125106.guest.html

Enter Gallup-guy:

Rush Limbaugh stated on his radio program Thursday that several polls have shown President Obama’s job approval rating to be below 50%, while Gallup’s has not. Limbaugh then stated: “Gallup has it [Obama’s job approval rating] just teetering there on the little teeter-totter at 50%, and they're doing everything they can, they’re upping the sample of black Americans, to keep him up at 50% in the Gallup Poll.”

This statement is a complete and inexplicable fabrication. Gallup has a 70-year history of providing unbiased, scientific measures of public attitudes. Gallup is not now, nor has it ever, modified its data in order to achieve any desired result.

http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2009/11/response-to-rush-limbaughs-claim.html
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,115
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3034 on: November 23, 2009, 04:12:21 AM »


I haven't been rejecting Rasmussen polls because they go through the network that calls itself "Fair and Balanced".

Rasmussen doesn't poll for Fox.  Opinion Dynamics does.

That`s not really true:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/missouri/election_2008_missouri_presidential_election

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=87502.0
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 43,164
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3035 on: November 23, 2009, 04:53:41 AM »


Ah, OK.  Wasn't aware of that.  Still, most Rasmussen polls are not specifically for Fox.  And Fox more commonly teams with Opinion Dynamics.
Logged
Rowan
RowanBrandon
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,692


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3036 on: November 23, 2009, 09:47:33 AM »

Arizona(Rasmussen)

Approve 40%
Disapprove 60%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/arizona/election_2010_arizona_governor_election
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,941
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3037 on: November 23, 2009, 10:35:41 AM »


Bad, but nationwide-8, so not that bad I suppose.
Logged
Umengus
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,288
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3038 on: November 23, 2009, 12:22:28 PM »


-8 due to Mc Cain. Arizona is a swing state, in normal times.
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,019
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3039 on: November 23, 2009, 03:07:43 PM »

Keep on going down, slowly for all I care. Hopefully he'll be down enough that we can tank his ass easily come 2012.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,114
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3040 on: November 23, 2009, 03:30:36 PM »



Arizona has some crazy politics. Joe Arpaio for Governor? John McCain faces a primary challenge from someone far out in right field -- and I don't mean a former member of the Arizona Diamondbacks. That's not an excuse. Arizona stands to be a disaster for Obama even without a Favorite Son. Have I been overestimating John McCain?

 

Logged
Applezz
applemanmat
Rookie
**
Posts: 130
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3041 on: November 23, 2009, 04:24:44 PM »


I still don't understand what the colors and letters in the map stand for. Can you please give a key or explain what they stand for.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,114
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3042 on: November 23, 2009, 04:27:47 PM »
« Edited: November 23, 2009, 06:17:55 PM by pbrower2a »

Keep on going down, slowly for all I care. Hopefully he'll be down enough that we can tank his ass easily come 2012.

Be careful what you wish for; you might just get it, not like it, and be unable to get rid of it. America was beginning to have the sorts of politics and economic philosophies (90% of the people suffering for 5% of the people) typical in places that people used to immigrate to America to get away from. You really don't want to be around in such a place unless you are one of the exploiters or one of the well-paid enforcers chosen for ruthless sociopathy. The GOP believes in that today, and I don't expect that to change in three years.

Yes, it is the economy. There's no easy and swift exit from the consequences of bad economic policies associated with GOP majorities in the House and Senate between 1994 and 2006 and with the Rove/Cheney/Bush administration. A fender-bender collision may be over in a few seconds, but the damaged vehicles take several days to get repaired even when all goes well. So it is with an economy as f---ed up as ours got... if you look at the sudden meltdown as the equivalent of the collision. That collision was no mere bit of bad luck that could happen to anyone just as readily; our economy was intoxicated on bad lending and cheap imports.

Ronald Reagan lost much of his popularity in 1981, but he chose to stay the course. He stuck to his supply-side economics, the right course for dealing with stagflation. This time with Obama, which better resembles the economic realities of 1931 than of 1981, we need Keynesian pump-priming of the sort that we got in 1933. We have just faced the diametric opposite of stagflation.



Take a good look at the above graph and see whether a more rapid reversal from

 (1) a steady decline from September 2007 to September 2008
 (2) the cliff-like fall of the S&P in September 2008, and
 (3) some further decay until February 2009

is possible. Productivity rises, and stale inventories get sold off, before people get their jobs back or find new ones.  The bear market abates before the recovery gets people back to work. When you consider that the jagged blue line of 2007-2009 started hugging the gray line of 1929-1933 and we are now in a more normal recession -- that's progress. We have yet to get back to the same level as the top of the cliff that we went down in September of last year.

Our economy is no longer plastered.  We have sobered up, and it hasn't been fun -- just necessary.  

 
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,114
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3043 on: November 23, 2009, 06:14:09 PM »


I still don't understand what the colors and letters in the map stand for. Can you please give a key or explain what they stand for.

Letters are codes for the months of the year in which the most recent poll has been taken. A is for January, B is for February... I is for September, J is for October, K is for November, and L will be for December. I have an asterisk for some small states that I can't remember the date of the last poll, but it seems consistent with Election 2008 and the state's electoral history. Hawaii and Rhode Island are the only two that fit that category, and a Republican wins those two only in a monumental (48- or 49-state, as in 1984) landslide. "Z" is for a state that hasn't been polled for more than six months; of those the only one that I have in color is Oklahoma, a state that would go to the Democrats only in something like a 45-state landslide.

In essence, white is an exact tie of the most recent poll or some polls that I have averaged to a tie. Gray indicates the lack of a recent poll that has any credibility. For example, the last poll for South Dakota showed Obama with a positive rating -- some time back in the spring. No way do I accept that one as relevant today. Some, like Mississippi and Vermont, haven't been polled since Election 2008.  Those are also in gray (no color).

In essence, white indicates a tie or an average that is an exact tie. (If, for example I see two polls for Missouri, one of them 48-46 for Obama and the other 46-48 I presume a tie).. So it is for Colorado and Florida. Shades of green suggests that President Obama's favorable count is stronger than the unfavorable count, no matter how slight. For example, two polls, one 48-46 positive and one 47-48 negative average to a positive; two polls with the reverse would be negative even if such a different amounts to less than a whole point. Shades of yellow indicate that the support for Obama balances out to something negative.

The deeper the green, the stronger is the positive rating. A pale green indicates that the balance is less than 50% positive for Obama, but still positive. Iowa shows that this time. The next-stronger shade shows Obama with a positive rating between 50% and 55%, inclusive, as in Wisconsin. Because the usual margin of error is 4%, the difference between 50% and 54% is practically slight -- but anything above 56% is far from average.  The next-higher color, as shown in Illinois, is for a positive rating between 56% and 65%, inclusive. Beyond that is a shade for 66% to 75%, which rarely appears on the map.

Yellow operates much the same way. The most recent poll in Tennessee showed Obama behind by a very slim margin with a negative rating under 50%. (Idaho shows that, but that is a very old poll that has yet to be updated).  Beige, as shown in Missouri, suggests a negative rating between 50% and 55%, inclusive. Again, the usual margin of error is about 4% either way. Tan shows disapproval between 56% and 65%, inclusively, as in Kansas. I have never seen a disapproval rating for Obama above 65%.

I do not distinguish between favorability and approval. There just aren't enough polls in most states to allow me to make a choice. If I see a pollster showing both an approval rating and a favorability rating, I average them.



 
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,115
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3044 on: November 24, 2009, 08:08:25 AM »

New Jersey (Quinnipiac)Sad

51% Approve
42% Disapprove

From November 17 - 22, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,615 New Jersey voters, with a margin of error of +/- 2.4 percentage points.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1299.xml?ReleaseID=1399
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,114
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3045 on: November 24, 2009, 09:19:01 AM »
« Edited: November 24, 2009, 01:34:21 PM by pbrower2a »

Weak approval in New Jersey, likely the aftermath of a gubernatorial election:




There's no miraculous recovery from a nasty meltdown of the economy as badly abused as it was.
Logged
Umengus
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,288
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3046 on: November 24, 2009, 12:07:43 PM »

New Jersey (Quinnipiac)Sad

51% Approve
42% Disapprove

From November 17 - 22, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,615 New Jersey voters, with a margin of error of +/- 2.4 percentage points.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1299.xml?ReleaseID=1399

it's very bad for Obama and that confirms, if need, Rasmussen, gallup and fox polls.

The popularity of Obama was stable in September, october and in the first days of november but for one week, Obama is in free fall. Terrorist trial and health care are the causes for me.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,114
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3047 on: November 24, 2009, 01:52:21 PM »

New Jersey (Quinnipiac)Sad

51% Approve
42% Disapprove

From November 17 - 22, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,615 New Jersey voters, with a margin of error of +/- 2.4 percentage points.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1299.xml?ReleaseID=1399

it's very bad for Obama and that confirms, if need, Rasmussen, gallup and fox polls.

The popularity of Obama was stable in September, october and in the first days of november but for one week, Obama is in free fall. Terrorist trial and health care are the causes for me.

Freefall? I can as easily interpret it as statistical noise. New Jersey? The current governor (the new one has yet to take office) was highly unpopular.

The Hard Right has been very loud in its denunciations of President Obama. Will the effects be permanent? Good question. It's had plenty of venom but practically no solutions that haven't been tried and found badly lacking. Some of those solutions have gotten us into the predicament that we are in.

On health care the Hard Right has nothing to offer but a system that rations health care by bank account; if you lack the money you just might die. Terrorism? We are finally going to put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial in America with evidence and testimony that befits a country like the USA instead of some show trial. KSM will have no chance to use the trial to push his murderous ideology. When the Hard Right had command in America it was able to waterboard KSM for self-incriminating testimony that would surely violate the Constitution.

You can be sure that KSM will have no chance to use the federal courthouse as a forum for spreading his horrible ideology. David Lane, Timothy McVeigh, Richard Reid, and Ted Kaczynski got no chance  to so use the courtroom.

The only political hazard that I see from the trial is the potential for a judicial travesty. As a rule I do not predict the results of court cases. I can figure that the Department of Justice has done what it can to ensure that KSM will have no substantial case to appeal, including testimony acquired illegally as is the wont of the prior Administration.
Logged
Devilman88
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,498


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3048 on: November 24, 2009, 02:00:33 PM »

WI:

Q1 Do you approve or disapprove of President
Barack Obama’s job performance? If you
approve, press 1. If you disapprove, press 2.
If you’re not sure, press 3.
Approve .......................................................... 47%
Disapprove...................................................... 47%
Not Sure.......................................................... 6%

link

Also, this is bad for the democrats too, but they don't care about what the people think..

Do you support or oppose President Obama’s
health care plan, or do you not have an
opinion? If you support it, press 1. If you
oppose it, press 2. If you don’t have an opinion,
press 3.
Support ........................................................... 37%
Oppose ........................................................... 52%
No Opinion...................................................... 11%
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,172


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3049 on: November 24, 2009, 02:12:04 PM »

WI:

Q1 Do you approve or disapprove of President
Barack Obama’s job performance? If you
approve, press 1. If you disapprove, press 2.
If you’re not sure, press 3.
Approve .......................................................... 47%
Disapprove...................................................... 47%
Not Sure.......................................................... 6%

link

Also, this is bad for the democrats too, but they don't care about what the people think..

Do you support or oppose President Obama’s
health care plan, or do you not have an
opinion? If you support it, press 1. If you
oppose it, press 2. If you don’t have an opinion,
press 3.
Support ........................................................... 37%
Oppose ........................................................... 52%
No Opinion...................................................... 11%

And yet polls show they support the public option...which are we to believe? Don't you think it is possible that they just disapprove of the way the health care bill has been handled by both more liberal democrats and the moderate/conservative democrats? I don't see any evidence of the majority of the country being against what is in the bill.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 117 118 119 120 121 [122] 123 124 125 126 127 ... 410  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.093 seconds with 10 queries.