The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:34:53 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 158 159 160 161 162 [163] 164 165 166 167 168 ... 410
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1205367 times)
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4050 on: March 05, 2010, 09:49:59 AM »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 46%

Disapprove 53%



Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4051 on: March 05, 2010, 12:33:04 PM »

1. It's possible that Hispanics (in CO, NV, and NM largely Mexican-Americans) are underrepresented in the polls, especially if they don't have landline phones. Hispanic voters are younger than the US average, and they are more likely to rely upon cell phones instead of landlines.  Pollsters can't reach cell phones. Even if Mexican-Americans, much more urban than America as a whole, have longer commutes, they are harder to reach by pollsters.

I want to rant about this for a minute, because I hear this "ZOMG NO LANDLINE PHONES" business an awful lot. People have been saying that this has been making polls invalid since 2002, and yet I haven't seen any *real evidence* to suggest that polling is becoming much less reliable or Democratic performance is being significantly understated because of this phenomenon.

You can say it makes sense in your head, but it just doesn't translate to real life. There's simply no significant difference between who has land lines and who doesn't based on party lines. Polling still seems as accurate (or as inaccurate) as it's always been. And young people don't vote anyway, so who cares if a tiny subsample of a tiny subsample is skewed slightly?

"ZOMG LANDLINE FONE" is just the newest excuse to justify ugly poll numbers. Nothing more.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4052 on: March 05, 2010, 01:03:07 PM »

1. It's possible that Hispanics (in CO, NV, and NM largely Mexican-Americans) are underrepresented in the polls, especially if they don't have landline phones. Hispanic voters are younger than the US average, and they are more likely to rely upon cell phones instead of landlines.  Pollsters can't reach cell phones. Even if Mexican-Americans, much more urban than America as a whole, have longer commutes, they are harder to reach by pollsters.

I want to rant about this for a minute, because I hear this "ZOMG NO LANDLINE PHONES" business an awful lot. People have been saying that this has been making polls invalid since 2002, and yet I haven't seen any *real evidence* to suggest that polling is becoming much less reliable or Democratic performance is being significantly understated because of this phenomenon.

You can say it makes sense in your head, but it just doesn't translate to real life. There's simply no significant difference between who has land lines and who doesn't based on party lines. Polling still seems as accurate (or as inaccurate) as it's always been. And young people don't vote anyway, so who cares if a tiny subsample of a tiny subsample is skewed slightly?

"ZOMG LANDLINE FONE" is just the newest excuse to justify ugly poll numbers. Nothing more.

I said only that it is possible. That is not to say that that explains one poll against another, and I don't know whether there might be others -- like elderly residents of senior citizens' homes -- who might also fit the pattern.

But if voters who have cellphones but not landline phones are heavily young and Hispanic, that could skew results in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico as it might not do so so blatantly in Iowa or Vermont.   
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4053 on: March 05, 2010, 01:47:40 PM »

Colorado (Rasmussen)Sad

43% Approve
56% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Colorado was conducted by Rasmussen Reports March 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/colorado/toplines/toplines_colorado_senate_march_2_2010

Nevada (Rasmussen)Sad

44% Approve
56% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Nevada was conducted by Rasmussen Reports March 3, 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/nevada/toplines/toplines_2010_nevada_senate_march_3_2010
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4054 on: March 05, 2010, 02:01:24 PM »

New Jersey (Rutgers)Sad

57% Approve
37% Disapprove

The Rutgers-Eagleton Poll was conducted from February 19-22, 2010 with a scientifically selected random sample of 886 registered voters. Data are weighted to represent known parameters in the New Jersey population, including gender, age, race, education, and Hispanic ethnicity. All results are reported with these weighted data.

http://eagletonpoll.rutgers.edu/polls/release_03-05-10.pdf
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4055 on: March 05, 2010, 02:26:06 PM »

New Jersey (Rutgers)Sad

57% Approve
37% Disapprove

The Rutgers-Eagleton Poll was conducted from February 19-22, 2010 with a scientifically selected random sample of 886 registered voters. Data are weighted to represent known parameters in the New Jersey population, including gender, age, race, education, and Hispanic ethnicity. All results are reported with these weighted data.

http://eagletonpoll.rutgers.edu/polls/release_03-05-10.pdf

LOL I went to Rutgers... not reliable data.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4056 on: March 05, 2010, 04:51:59 PM »

NJ -- poll nothing changes; category slips, CO and NV.



Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% 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.

Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,542


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4057 on: March 05, 2010, 09:24:35 PM »

I dont see how Obama wins Nevada or Colorado again.  Those are both states that seem to go against the White House when Democrats hold it.  In 1996, Clinton lost Colorado after winning it handily in 1992 and came within 4,000 votes of losing Nevada after winning it by 13,000 in 1992. 
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4058 on: March 06, 2010, 10:04:42 AM »



Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45%

Disapprove 54%


Strongly Approve:  25%

Strongly Disapprove:  42%

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4059 on: March 06, 2010, 10:44:37 AM »

I dont see how Obama wins Nevada or Colorado again.  Those are both states that seem to go against the White House when Democrats hold it.  In 1996, Clinton lost Colorado after winning it handily in 1992 and came within 4,000 votes of losing Nevada after winning it by 13,000 in 1992. 

President Obama loses those states if he loses a big chunk of the Hispanic vote in those two states. It is that simple. Will he? It's 32 months until the Presidential election, and much can happen between in 32 months.

President Obama is not in campaign mode, and he does not have his political apparatus running.  He will have it ready to run at the least for two important Senate races in those two states. He owes much to Harry Byrd, and he is not going to let Harry Byrd go down without a fight.

It's easy to extrapolate a short-term trend... but I can still imagine much going right for President Obama over the next 32 months. One is Iraq; another is Afghanistan. Graceful exits from both will be huge accomplishments well appreciated.

As for the danger of extrapolating a trend, I wouldn't extrapolate the last twelve months of stock market activity:



In any event, economic conditions are much less dangerous than they were when President Obama took office.

OK -- Nevada was a surprise to everyone in 2008. Late in the campaign it was a toss-up, but the state went firmly for Obama -- probably because of the financial mess that hit young homeowners with huge mortgages hard.

I don't think that Obama can win Nevada as decisively in 2012 as in 2008 even against a certifiable nutcase as an opponent. Colorado is infamous for some of the most capricious voting patterns for any state.  



  
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4060 on: March 06, 2010, 10:56:15 AM »

Nebraska (Rasmussen)Sad

38% Approve
61% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Nebraska was conducted by Rasmussen Reports March 4, 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_governor_elections/nebraska/toplines/toplines_nebraska_governor_march_4_2010
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4061 on: March 06, 2010, 11:35:01 AM »
« Edited: March 08, 2010, 10:19:54 AM by pbrower2a »

Nebraska statewide update. NE-02 likely votes differently.



Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% 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.


Logged
Umengus
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,474
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4062 on: March 06, 2010, 12:00:51 PM »

I dont see how Obama wins Nevada or Colorado again.  Those are both states that seem to go against the White House when Democrats hold it.  In 1996, Clinton lost Colorado after winning it handily in 1992 and came within 4,000 votes of losing Nevada after winning it by 13,000 in 1992. 

President Obama loses those states if he loses a big chunk of the Hispanic vote in those two states. It is that simple. Will he? It's 32 months until the Presidential election, and much can happen between in 32 months.

President Obama is not in campaign mode, and he does not have his political apparatus running.  He will have it ready to run at the least for two important Senate races in those two states. He owes much to Harry Byrd, and he is not going to let Harry Byrd go down without a fight.

It's easy to extrapolate a short-term trend... but I can still imagine much going right for President Obama over the next 32 months. One is Iraq; another is Afghanistan. Graceful exits from both will be huge accomplishments well appreciated.

As for the danger of extrapolating a trend, I wouldn't extrapolate the last twelve months of stock market activity:



In any event, economic conditions are much less dangerous than they were when President Obama took office.

OK -- Nevada was a surprise to everyone in 2008. Late in the campaign it was a toss-up, but the state went firmly for Obama -- probably because of the financial mess that hit young homeowners with huge mortgages hard.

I don't think that Obama can win Nevada as decisively in 2012 as in 2008 even against a certifiable nutcase as an opponent. Colorado is infamous for some of the most capricious voting patterns for any state.  



  

Not in campaign mode ? lol
Logged
Rowan
RowanBrandon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,692


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4063 on: March 06, 2010, 01:03:59 PM »

Nebraska statewide update. NE-02 likely votes differently.

Yeah, Obama probably has a 60% approval rating there.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4064 on: March 06, 2010, 02:03:07 PM »

Nebraska statewide update. NE-02 likely votes differently.

Yeah, Obama probably has a 60% approval rating there.

I'd guess about 44%, give or take 3%.

NE-01 voted much like Texas.
NE-02 voted much like Indiana.
NE-03 voted much like Wyoming.

 
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4065 on: March 06, 2010, 02:13:04 PM »

I dont see how Obama wins Nevada or Colorado again.  Those are both states that seem to go against the White House when Democrats hold it.  In 1996, Clinton lost Colorado after winning it handily in 1992 and came within 4,000 votes of losing Nevada after winning it by 13,000 in 1992. 

President Obama loses those states if he loses a big chunk of the Hispanic vote in those two states. It is that simple. Will he? It's 32 months until the Presidential election, and much can happen between in 32 months.

President Obama is not in campaign mode, and he does not have his political apparatus running.  He will have it ready to run at the least for two important Senate races in those two states. He owes much to Harry Byrd, and he is not going to let Harry Byrd go down without a fight.

It's easy to extrapolate a short-term trend... but I can still imagine much going right for President Obama over the next 32 months. One is Iraq; another is Afghanistan. Graceful exits from both will be huge accomplishments well appreciated.

I don't think that Obama can win Nevada as decisively in 2012 as in 2008 even against a certifiable nutcase as an opponent. Colorado is infamous for some of the most capricious voting patterns for any state.  


Not in campaign mode ? lol

I look at how Barack Obama won Nevada in 2008: he practically colonized the state with Democratic activists from California who knew that California was a sure thing. Many of those political activists changed legal residence to Nevada so that they could vote there. Such will happen again should Nevada be in doubt.

I look at how he won Colorado and New Mexico: with lots of campaign volunteers from Texas who knew that nothing that they could do in Texas could win Texas. Some probably changed their states of legal residence to Colorado or New Mexico so that they could vote where they were active.

Those California and Texas Democrats have mostly gone home. If necessary, they will be back. Some of the Texas activists will likely end up in Missouri in 2012, and some of the California activists will be in Arizona in 2012.

 
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4066 on: March 06, 2010, 04:16:13 PM »





President Obama is not in campaign mode, and he does not have his political apparatus running.  He will have it ready to run at the least for two important Senate races in those two states. He owes much to Harry Byrd, and he is not going to let Harry Byrd go down without a fight.



Actually, he is.  It was reported last week.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4067 on: March 06, 2010, 06:12:31 PM »

I dont see how Obama wins Nevada or Colorado again.  Those are both states that seem to go against the White House when Democrats hold it.  In 1996, Clinton lost Colorado after winning it handily in 1992 and came within 4,000 votes of losing Nevada after winning it by 13,000 in 1992. 

President Obama is not in campaign mode, and he does not have his political apparatus running.  He will have it ready to run at the least for two important Senate races in those two states. He owes much to Harry Byrd, and he is not going to let Harry Byrd go down without a fight.
   

Obama owes much to a 96 year-old segregationist?  That explains a lot.  But in all seriousness, Obama's campaign apparatus (which you insist will one day 'come out of the mothballs') has never really gone away.  Obama's Presidency has been one long presidential campaign.  The President has already gone to Nevada twice.  On both occasions, Reid saw his polling numbers fall.  Don't forget that there's a lot of animosity between Obama and Reid.  I wouldn't be surprised if Obama tries to sabotage his campaign.  Remember, Obama has no friends: only enemies he hasn't disposed of yet.

My goof -- I meant Harry Reid, D-NV.

As for "enemies that he hasn't disposed of yet" -- you make him sound like a mobster or a fascist dictator. You tell me where the dead bodies are. 
Logged
Poundingtherock
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 917
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4068 on: March 06, 2010, 06:20:01 PM »

Gallup 47/46
Logged
ConservativeIllini
Rookie
**
Posts: 104


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4069 on: March 06, 2010, 06:48:16 PM »

Gallup has been ridiculous with wild swings lately, I really don't understand it.  About 4 days ago, he was at 52/41...
Logged
ScottM
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 299


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: 4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4070 on: March 06, 2010, 11:14:17 PM »

Gallup has been ridiculous with wild swings lately, I really don't understand it.  About 4 days ago, he was at 52/41...

You never know what Gallup will say from day to day. There's way too much variation in it.
Logged
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4071 on: March 07, 2010, 05:08:39 AM »

I look at how Barack Obama won Nevada in 2008: he practically colonized the state with Democratic activists from California who knew that California was a sure thing. Many of those political activists changed legal residence to Nevada so that they could vote there. Such will happen again should Nevada be in doubt.

I look at how he won Colorado and New Mexico: with lots of campaign volunteers from Texas who knew that nothing that they could do in Texas could win Texas. Some probably changed their states of legal residence to Colorado or New Mexico so that they could vote where they were active.

Those California and Texas Democrats have mostly gone home. If necessary, they will be back. Some of the Texas activists will likely end up in Missouri in 2012, and some of the California activists will be in Arizona in 2012.

 

This is as morally reprehensible as gerrymandering.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4072 on: March 07, 2010, 09:57:19 AM »



Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 48% (+3)

Disapprove 52% (-2)

"Strongly" numbers both dropped.




Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4073 on: March 07, 2010, 03:19:42 PM »

I look at how Barack Obama won Nevada in 2008: he practically colonized the state with Democratic activists from California who knew that California was a sure thing. Many of those political activists changed legal residence to Nevada so that they could vote there. Such will happen again should Nevada be in doubt.

I look at how he won Colorado and New Mexico: with lots of campaign volunteers from Texas who knew that nothing that they could do in Texas could win Texas. Some probably changed their states of legal residence to Colorado or New Mexico so that they could vote where they were active.

Those California and Texas Democrats have mostly gone home. If necessary, they will be back. Some of the Texas activists will likely end up in Missouri in 2012, and some of the California activists will be in Arizona in 2012.

 

This is as morally reprehensible as gerrymandering.

It is far preferable to what Katherine Harris did in Florida in 2000 and what Kenneth Blackwell did in Ohio in 2004. It is 100% legal. It is a legitimate practice in campaigning. The Republicans can do it, too. They too could encourage lots of Texas Republicans to visit a state that is shaky for Democrats -- let us say Florida -- and campaign heavily there, fully aware that Texas is a given for the Republicans, or lots of California Republicans who know that California Republicans have no reasonable chance of winning the state for their Presidential candidate and going to a state shaky for Democrats -- like Colorado or Nevada.  If such does not work in 2012, it might in 2016 -- 2020 at the latest.

I am reminded of what Tsar Alexander said of Napoleon's invasion of Russia (even if it comes from Tolstoy): he will teach us what we must do to defeat him. This time "them" means the Democrats.

President Obama has changed the way in which close Presidential elections can be done by a challenger. Barack Obama would have won the election with such practices; the financial disaster and Sarah Palin made the election not-so-close.
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4074 on: March 07, 2010, 03:38:10 PM »

That defeats the whole purpose of the balance of power in the electoral college. It's immoral.

Republics only prosper with certain restrictions, so no one can rule over anyone.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 158 159 160 161 162 [163] 164 165 166 167 168 ... 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 0.09 seconds with 12 queries.