|           
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2020, 04:02:57 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 124 125 126 127 128 [129] 130 131 132 133 134 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1030442 times)
GLPman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,160
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3200 on: December 15, 2009, 08:20:58 pm »

At least he admits that he's biased.
Logged
CJK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 671
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3201 on: December 15, 2009, 09:30:56 pm »

Here's an easier idea: take the Real Clear Politics average net approval of Obama (currently +3.4%), figure out the difference from 2008 (-3.9%) and then apply that to every state:



Light blue indicates that it disapproves of Obama but the margin is so close <5% that we can't be sure. Same with light red for Obama approval. Ohio is toss-up because the margin is meaningless (less than 1%).
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3202 on: December 15, 2009, 09:38:23 pm »

"Likely voters" in a midterm election are far closer to those of a Presidential election than are those in an odd-year election. For now, midterm elections matter far more than does the 2012 election.

Uh, not really.  Turnout in midterm years is closer to off-years, in both percent turnout and composition of the electorate.  What makes you think otherwise?

It's intermediate. Odd-year elections rarely involve elections for gubernatorial or House seats, and almost never Senate seats. There might be initiatives and referenda, local elections, and the like.
 
In all states, two of three mid-term elections involve Senate seats and all House seats are up for grabs during midterm elections. Midterm elections as a rule do not involve the Presidency. These elections attract fewer voters than do the Big Ones -- the Presidential elections. Such should be obvious.

It's far easier to establish a get-out-the-vote drive during a Presidential election because of the importance of a Presidential election. With few exceptions (I can think of 1930, 1994, and 2006), midterm elections rarely draw the attention of a Presidential election.      
Logged
Carapace Clavicle Moundshroud
ShadowOfTheWave
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,044
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3203 on: December 15, 2009, 09:41:49 pm »

Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3204 on: December 15, 2009, 11:12:13 pm »

Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,350
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3205 on: December 15, 2009, 11:17:12 pm »

pbrower2a's previous rationale for excluding "likely voter" polls:

The New Jersey poll relates to a gubernatorial race in 2010.

Even when you erroneously thought the NJ gubernatorial race was in 2010, you wanted to exclude the poll.
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 #3206 on: December 15, 2009, 11:43:15 pm »

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3207 on: December 16, 2009, 12:11:28 am »

pbrower2a's previous rationale for excluding "likely voter" polls:

The New Jersey poll relates to a gubernatorial race in 2010.

Even when you erroneously thought the NJ gubernatorial race was in 2010, you wanted to exclude the poll.


I was mistaken then. So does it matter now? Just watch for the next New Jersey poll.

Who doesn't make errors? I don't watch gubernatorial races closely.
Logged
Smid
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3208 on: December 16, 2009, 12:22:03 am »

pbrower2a's previous rationale for excluding "likely voter" polls:

The New Jersey poll relates to a gubernatorial race in 2010.

Even when you erroneously thought the NJ gubernatorial race was in 2010, you wanted to exclude the poll.


I was mistaken then. So does it matter now? Just watch for the next New Jersey poll.

Who doesn't make errors? I don't watch gubernatorial races closely.

It's not that you were mistaken, it's that you're being inconsistent. When you thought the New Jersey poll was a poll of 2010 Likely Voters, you excluded it on the basis of 2010 Likely Voters not being 2012 Voters. Now you have another poll of 2010 Likely Voters and you choose to included it because 2010 Likely Voters closely resemble 2012 Likely Voters.

The rationale behind adopting 2010 Likely Voter polls or rejecting 2010 Likely Voter polls for the purpose of this map is unimportant - so long as there is consistency. Either reject all 2010 Likely Voter polls or accept all 2010 Likely Voter polls - but don't accept or reject them based on whether or not you like the result.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,617
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3209 on: December 16, 2009, 01:40:02 am »

Louisiana (Southern Media & Opinion Research)Sad

43% Excellent/Good
54% Fair/Poor

800 likely voters conducted 12/12/09 thru 12/14/09

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/Louisiana/Politics/Louisiana_Poll__Mary_Landrieu_Plummets_Vitter_Melancon_Drop___9979.asp
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 #3210 on: December 16, 2009, 09:11:51 am »

Florida(Rasmussen)

Approve 44%
Disapprove 55%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/florida/toplines/toplines_2010_florida_governor_race_december_14_2009
Logged
Farage
Elvis Republican
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 419
Cape Verde


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3211 on: December 16, 2009, 09:13:11 am »

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3212 on: December 16, 2009, 10:30:38 am »
« Edited: December 16, 2009, 01:45:56 pm by pbrower2a »

Poor showing for Obama in Florida; better than 2008 in Louisiana.



Logged
5280
MagneticFree
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,398
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.97, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3213 on: December 16, 2009, 12:45:49 pm »

Logged
Umengus
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,215
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3214 on: December 16, 2009, 01:07:45 pm »

Battleground - likely voters

approv: 50 %
dis: 45 %

Big problem with this poll: party id: D: 43 % R: 37 % I: 20 %

ABC - adult

approv: 50 %
dis: 46 %

Party id: I: 37 % D: 32 % R: 26 %

For info, the former abc poll had republicans at 21 % and medias had been strong on this weak number.  Now, I guesse that medias will correct and will speak of "come back of the gop", ...


+ the 2 polls have the same difference between dem and rep (+6) and hence, the same result (50 %)
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3215 on: December 16, 2009, 01:48:29 pm »
« Edited: December 16, 2009, 05:48:12 pm by pbrower2a »


Poor showing for Obama in Florida; better than 2008 in Louisiana.

Louisiana has similar demographics to South Carolina, doesn't it?



Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3216 on: December 16, 2009, 01:51:41 pm »
« Edited: December 16, 2009, 05:43:08 pm by pbrower2a »


 I'm staying. If you so despise me, then find some other sandbox.
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 #3217 on: December 16, 2009, 04:44:01 pm »

Excellent/Good and Fair/Poor aren't the same as approval and disapproval and should not be included.
Logged
Carapace Clavicle Moundshroud
ShadowOfTheWave
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,044
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3218 on: December 16, 2009, 04:51:42 pm »

Excellent/Good and Fair/Poor aren't the same as approval and disapproval and should not be included.

Why are you talking to him as if he has standards?
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3219 on: December 16, 2009, 05:39:08 pm »

Mrs. P's Kindergarden class poll of Obama's Oklahoma Approval rating:

57% Approve
31% Applesauce
12% Bananas/ Don't know
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,943
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3220 on: December 16, 2009, 05:40:42 pm »

Mrs. P's Kindergarden class poll of Obama's Oklahoma Approval rating:

57% Approve
31% Applesauce
12% Bananas/ Don't know

Turnin' OK green, oh yeeeeeah.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3221 on: December 16, 2009, 06:04:38 pm »

Excellent/Good and Fair/Poor aren't the same as approval and disapproval and should not be included.

We have multiple pollsters, multiple techniques of getting data, different questions, different times... higher standardization would get more reliability at the cost of information. Statewide polls would mean more if we took only approval polls from Rasmussen at the expense of all others.

So do you really want to reject PPP, Quinnipiac, Selzer, and (gasp!) SurveyUSA?

We are looking for patterns and we can never get precision in a poll, can we? We can see change over time, change in some regions if such appears... we need to see that. We can assess how Obama is doing.
Logged
ConservativeIllini
Rookie
**
Posts: 104


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3222 on: December 16, 2009, 08:10:51 pm »

Why is Virginia blue on the map?

Didn't PPP have a poll that was around 51% disapproval for Obama recently?

I believe that PPP is a relatively reputable polling agency...
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3223 on: December 16, 2009, 09:08:53 pm »

Why is Virginia blue on the map?

Didn't PPP have a poll that was around 51% disapproval for Obama recently?

I believe that PPP is a relatively reputable polling agency...

That was back in November. Another pollster, SUSA, had a disapproval rating in the high fifties. That was the last brown shade for November/

The latest poll rules if nothing less than two weeks old is available. The latest one is from a couple days ago and it was 50-50. It's aquamarine as a tie at 50%, and not blue.
Logged
Smid
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3224 on: December 16, 2009, 09:16:12 pm »

Why is Virginia blue on the map?

Didn't PPP have a poll that was around 51% disapproval for Obama recently?

I believe that PPP is a relatively reputable polling agency...

That was back in November. Another pollster, SUSA, had a disapproval rating in the high fifties. That was the last brown shade for November/

The latest poll rules if nothing less than two weeks old is available. The latest one is from a couple days ago and it was 50-50. It's aquamarine as a tie at 50%, and not blue.

A tie at below 50% is better for Obama than a tie at 50% because it implies fewer people disapprove of him and more people are uncertain and could swing back in support of him. A 30% Green shade should not be used for a 50% tie.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 124 125 126 127 128 [129] 130 131 132 133 134 ... 410 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines