The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[Ronnie]

Obama undeniably got a bounce.  We'll see how long it holds...

[J. J.]

Obama undeniably got a bounce.  We'll see how long it holds...

The Strongly Approve numbers already pulled back on Rasmussen. 

[Rowan]

Arkansas Updated.

Texas(Rasmussen)
Approve 41%
Disapprove 58%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/texas/toplines/toplines_texas_governor_s_race_february_1_2010



30%-39%-Dark Dark Red
40%-44%- Dark Red
45-49%- Red
Under 50% approval but approval higher than disapproval- Yellow
50%-54%- Light Green
55%-59%- Green
60%+- Dark Green

[ConservativeIllini]

Per Quinnipiac, Obama approval at 57% in New York. 

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1420

[pbrower2a]

First three February polls: two are Arkansas and Texas. Both are declines for Obama, but they don't cause changes in  categories. Of course, Arkansas was in the absolute lowest category of support for the President in January.  New York shows no change.  



Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 70% Yellow (90% if 60% or higher disapproval)
40-44% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
45-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)
<50%  Approval greater: 30% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-60%: 60% Green
>60%: 80% Green

Months:

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), and more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Z- no recent poll (maximum 180 days) before December 1, 2009 except Montana (November 2009), which rarely gets polled.

[The Age Wave]

Rowan's map looks a lot worse for Obama.

[Psychic Octopus]

I want my New Mexico polling.

[pbrower2a]

Rowan's map looks a lot worse for Obama.

Color choice. Red and green clash; green and yellow don't. That's more an esthetic statement than a political statement. Rowan and I basically agree. 

[J. J.]

Rowan's map looks a lot worse for Obama.

Color choice. Red and green clash; green and yellow don't. That's more an esthetic statement than a political statement. Rowan and I basically agree. 

I think Rowan's map is easier to read (though dark green Maryland looks dark red).

[Alcon]

Rowan's map looks a lot worse for Obama.

Color choice. Red and green clash; green and yellow don't. That's more an esthetic statement than a political statement. Rowan and I basically agree.  

I think Rowan's map is easier to read (though dark green Maryland looks dark red).

You may want to look at your monitor's color settings if it does...although if a lot of the rest of the Northeast doesn't as well, that's a puzzler; they're the same shade.

[pbrower2a]

I want my New Mexico polling.

I also want to see Maine,  Tennessee, and West Virginia polled.  Don't forget Nebraska's Second Congressional District!

[Psychic Octopus]

It's interesting to note that the states would, if the polling is correct, vote for "someone else." Now, why is it that the national trend shows him with approval generally in the high 40s/low 50s, then?

[J. J.]

It's interesting to note that the states would, if the polling is correct, vote for "someone else." Now, why is it that the national trend shows him with approval generally in the high 40s/low 50s, then?

Sizable concentration of supporters in some states, e.g. IL, NY?

[5280]

When are we going to get a polling from WY?

[Tender Branson]

Connecticut (Rasmussen)

51% Approve
49% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Connecticut was conducted by Rasmussen Reports February 1, 2010. 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/connecticut/toplines/toplines_connecticut_senate_race_february_1_2010

(very strange)

[Eraserhead]

Connecticut (Rasmussen)

51% Approve
49% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Connecticut was conducted by Rasmussen Reports February 1, 2010. 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/connecticut/toplines/toplines_connecticut_senate_race_february_1_2010

(very strange)

wtf

[pbrower2a]

It's interesting to note that the states would, if the polling is correct, vote for "someone else." Now, why is it that the national trend shows him with approval generally in the high 40s/low 50s, then?

In general, an incumbent President has about a 50-50 chance of winning re-election if his approval rating is at 44%. (Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com)  Above 44% the likelihood of victory skyrockets to near 100% at 47% approval. Unless something funny is going on (like a favorite son as an opponent in the state) such is likely a good approximation for winning the state. So in a two-way race with a couple of minor parties running candidates who sop up the disaffected vote and allow one of the two main candidates to win with about 49% of the vote, this map of the latest  approval ratings for likely voters (note: Connecticut updated)




Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 70% Yellow (90% if 60% or higher disapproval)
40-44% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
45-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)
<50%  Approval greater: 30% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-60%: 60% Green
>60%: 80% Green

Months:

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), and more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Z- no recent poll (maximum 180 days) before December 1, 2009 except Montana (November 2009), which rarely gets polled.

becomes something like this:



Victory by margin


Obama wins 10% or more
Obama wins 5-9.9%
Obama wins under 5%
tie (in white)
Republican nominee wins under 5%
Republican nominee wins 5-9.9%
Republican wins over 10%

Gray -- no data

(Ignore letters)

It is possible to win with 49% of the vote, as Obama did in Indiana and North Carolina and as McCain did in Missouri in 2008 if there are third-party candidates.

Anyone can reasonably fill in the "gray" states that have no recent polls... DC, Maine, Vermont, Hawaii, and New Mexico will likely go for Obama; Mississippi, Tennessee, Wyoming, and likely West Virginia will go for the Republican.

It's simple: add 5% to the approval rating for likely voters and you will get Obama's percentage of the vote. If you get a total of 47% to 49%. call it a statistical tie. 50%? Call it a win.   Otherwise it is an Obama loss.

You are free to dispute this for individual state; I think that Obama would more likely win Virginia than either North Carolina or South Carolina, but such is what the most recent polls and the model suggest will happen. But in general, the Republican nominee is in deep trouble.

For the Republican the states in white have to be scary; even if he thinks that Obama won't win North or South Carolina,  the scattered states in white are all iffy. There is no sure way to win all of Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia with the same pitch.

******

I do not have this as a prediction for the 2012 Presidential election.  

"Somebody else" might mean "anyone else" if people who so identify their Presidential choice in 2012 are so dissatisfied that they would go for a bland, uninspiring opponent as a transitional figure until the next attractive nominee is available. That is in essence "anyone but Obama". It can also mean that people can imagine better than he and are looking for someone better. Is that "someone better" available? The potential Republican candidates all have faults.

We don't know who "Somebody Else" or "Generic Republican" is yet.  Style matters greatly in a campaign. A technocrat with business experience might have little ability to communicate with voters despite manifest competence, and might have  left behind a large number of disgruntled former employees who would gladly turn against his campaign. A right-wing populist might have wacky ideas that seem crazier than what president Obama has offered. Sure, if people can find the "right person" to oppose Obama they will vote for that person... but nothing says that that "right person" exists. 

In 2008, Senator Barack Obama ran on an upbeat series of campaign pitches. If he sees his re-election campaign having a chance of losing in 2012, then he might authorize negative ads that sow doubt about the opponent. Negative ads can work at casting doubt on the candidate and his claims. 

[J. J.]

It's interesting to note that the states would, if the polling is correct, vote for "someone else." Now, why is it that the national trend shows him with approval generally in the high 40s/low 50s, then?

In general, an incumbent President has about a 50-50 chance of winning re-election if his approval rating is at 44%. (Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com)  Above 44% the likelihood of victory skyrockets to near 100% at 47% approval. Unless something funny is going on (like a favorite son as an opponent in the state) such is likely a good approximation for winning the state. So in a two-way race with a couple of minor parties running candidates who sop up the disaffected vote and allow one of the two main candidates to win with about 49% of the vote, this map of the latest  approval ratings for likely voters (note: Connecticut updated)

If you are looking at this, at this point in time, the statement is false.  Carter had 55%, GHWB, about a month after the capture of Noriega, had an 80%.

No elected president was lower than a 47% approval numbers on Gallup, at this point in time.  Reagan had 49% and was re-elected.  Clinton was as 54% (and was on an upswing) but only had 49% of the vote in the next presidential election.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm

Either Silver has it wrong, grandly, or you are misquoting him.

[ConservativeIllini]

Rassy has Obama approval in Illinois at 54-45.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/illinois/election_2010_illinois_senate

[Oakvale]

It's interesting to note that the states would, if the polling is correct, vote for "someone else." Now, why is it that the national trend shows him with approval generally in the high 40s/low 50s, then?

In general, an incumbent President has about a 50-50 chance of winning re-election if his approval rating is at 44%. (Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com)  Above 44% the likelihood of victory skyrockets to near 100% at 47% approval. Unless something funny is going on (like a favorite son as an opponent in the state) such is likely a good approximation for winning the state. So in a two-way race with a couple of minor parties running candidates who sop up the disaffected vote and allow one of the two main candidates to win with about 49% of the vote, this map of the latest  approval ratings for likely voters (note: Connecticut updated)

If you are looking at this, at this point in time, the statement is false.  Carter had 55%, GHWB, about a month after the capture of Noriega, had an 80%.

No elected president was lower than a 47% approval numbers on Gallup, at this point in time.  Reagan had 49% and was re-elected.  Clinton was as 54% (and was on an upswing) but only had 49% of the vote in the next presidential election.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm

Either Silver has it wrong, grandly, or you are misquoting him.

I'm assuming he's referring to approval on Election Day...

[Tender Branson]

Kentucky (Rasmussen)

42% Approve
57% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Kentucky was conducted by Rasmussen Reports February 2, 2010. 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/kentucky/toplines/toplines_2010_kentucky_senate_race_february_2_2010

[pbrower2a]

It's interesting to note that the states would, if the polling is correct, vote for "someone else." Now, why is it that the national trend shows him with approval generally in the high 40s/low 50s, then?

In general, an incumbent President has about a 50-50 chance of winning re-election if his approval rating is at 44%. (Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com)  Above 44% the likelihood of victory skyrockets to near 100% at 47% approval. Unless something funny is going on (like a favorite son as an opponent in the state) such is likely a good approximation for winning the state. So in a two-way race with a couple of minor parties running candidates who sop up the disaffected vote and allow one of the two main candidates to win with about 49% of the vote, this map of the latest  approval ratings for likely voters (note: Connecticut updated)

If you are looking at this, at this point in time, the statement is false.  Carter had 55%, GHWB, about a month after the capture of Noriega, had an 80%.

No elected president was lower than a 47% approval numbers on Gallup, at this point in time.  Reagan had 49% and was re-elected.  Clinton was as 54% (and was on an upswing) but only had 49% of the vote in the next presidential election.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm

Either Silver has it wrong, grandly, or you are misquoting him.

That is... at a certain time close to the election. We are far from the 2012 Presidential election. I am not willing to extrapolate further deterioration of his approval ratings because to extrapolate such is statistical recklessness.

I fail to see much difference between the 49% for Reagan and the 47% for Obama. The difference is probably smaller than the number of racists who would never recognize the legitimate achievements of any black person. At that I am talking about those who fail to recognize Morgan Freeman as a fine actor.  Yes, there really are still people, and I make no personal accusations. But that goes with being black, and if that is the difference, then Barack Obama is in a good position for winning re-election.   So if Ronald Reagan could win nearly 59% of the popular vote in 1984 after having a 49% approval rating on February 1, 1981, what is to say that President Obama, whose strongest political skills are similar to those of Ronald Reagan, can't do much the same? Like Reagan, Obama has a bad economy and a bad international scene to deal with.

So if the economy improves (increased employment, slowly-rising wages and slighter inflation, and we are able to get out of Iraq and show strong progress in Afghanistan, how would you expect President Obama to do in 2012?  


This is what things look like now with updates in Illinois, Kentucky (Illinois drops one category from where it was in December, New Jersey moves up one with a marginal improvement):



... and just imagine what the Presidential election of 2012 looks like if interstate polarization of the electorate weakens while Obama wins 55% of the vote. If there is any one clear tendency it is that the interstate polarization in the electorate, so obvious in November 2008, has shrunk significantly.  

[Tender Branson]

New Jersey (Monmouth University, 803 adults, 716 registered voters)

55% Approve (RV: 53%)
36% Disapprove (RV: 38%)

61% Favorable (RV: 59%)
26% Unfavorable (RV: 28%)

(Gov. Christie)

33% Approve (RV: 31%)
15% Disapprove (RV: 15%)

The Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Poll was conducted by telephone with 803 New Jersey adults from January 27 to 31, 2010. This sample has a margin of error of + 3.5 percent. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute and originally published by the Gannett New Jersey newspaper group (Asbury Park Press, Courier-Post, Courier News, Daily Journal, Daily Record, and Home News Tribune).

http://www.monmouth.edu/polling/admin/polls/MUP32_2.pdf

http://www.monmouth.edu/polling/admin/polls/MUP32_1.pdf

[Tender Branson]

FOX News:

46% Approve
47% Disapprove

51% Favorable
43% Unfavorable

Polling was conducted by telephone February 2-3, 2010, in the evenings. The total sample is 900 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of 3 percentage points. Results are of registered voters, unless otherwise noted.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/020410_Obama-Washington_web.pdf

[J. J.]

It's interesting to note that the states would, if the polling is correct, vote for "someone else." Now, why is it that the national trend shows him with approval generally in the high 40s/low 50s, then?

In general, an incumbent President has about a 50-50 chance of winning re-election if his approval rating is at 44%. (Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com)  Above 44% the likelihood of victory skyrockets to near 100% at 47% approval. Unless something funny is going on (like a favorite son as an opponent in the state) such is likely a good approximation for winning the state. So in a two-way race with a couple of minor parties running candidates who sop up the disaffected vote and allow one of the two main candidates to win with about 49% of the vote, this map of the latest  approval ratings for likely voters (note: Connecticut updated)

If you are looking at this, at this point in time, the statement is false.  Carter had 55%, GHWB, about a month after the capture of Noriega, had an 80%.

No elected president was lower than a 47% approval numbers on Gallup, at this point in time.  Reagan had 49% and was re-elected.  Clinton was as 54% (and was on an upswing) but only had 49% of the vote in the next presidential election.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm

Either Silver has it wrong, grandly, or you are misquoting him.

That is... at a certain time close to the election. We are far from the 2012 Presidential election. I am not willing to extrapolate further deterioration of his approval ratings because to extrapolate such is statistical recklessness.

I'm suggesting that the use of statistic, 47%, is meaningless, since all elected presidents were above 47% at this point in time in their first term, including those that were not reelected.  In other words, either Nate Silver is very wrong or you are misquoting him.


[/quote]
I fail to see much difference between the 49% for Reagan and the 47% for Obama. The difference is probably smaller than the number of racists who would never recognize the legitimate achievements of any black person.
[/quote]

Or knee jerk liberals that never would have supported Reagan.

I do, however, see one major difference, Obama's negatives are higher, and really have been since 2-5 months into his term.  It didn't start out that way.

I think that it started several months into his term may dispute the "it's all racial" theory.  It has also grown.