The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:30:54 PM
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 ... 159 160 161 162 163 [164] 165 166 167 168 169 ... 410
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1206280 times)
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4075 on: March 07, 2010, 04:05:03 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.

Nothing prohibits electioneering across state lines.  That includes fundraising. Nothing prohibits travel across state lines for the purpose of organizing grass-roots politics (including canvassing and get-out-the-vote campaigns) in another state. Had I not had concern about a congressional race in my district, I might have gone from Michigan to a state in which the Presidential race was not so certain.  (Two guesses. It was not Wisconsin). 

It is perfectly legal to change one's state of residence so that one can vote in a different bailiwick. For few people is that easy, but if I had been one of President Obama's paid field organizer I might have done so. Should I be in 2012, then who knows? I might become a legal resident of Colorado, Indiana, or Ohio -- and vote in that state's election.

What is really nasty is trying to influence people who have control over the count of votes. When I consider what seemed possible in 2000 and 2004, I understand why President Obama did what he did in spreading his efforts to contest every state that might be close once consolidating the Blue Firewall. Such is a legitimate beat-the-cheat strategy. As it turns out, to win in 2008 the Republicans would have had to cheat in Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia to win. In 2000 and 2004 they needed only one of those states. 

If one has paid staff from Illinois, then it is easy to get them from Illinois where they will make little difference to Indiana, Missouri and Ohio where they might make a difference in a close election.

 

 
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4076 on: March 07, 2010, 04:17:01 PM »

Having people vote accross state lines is ridiculous and wrong, period. People should be voting in their home state. You are crazy for saying that is okay, but of course, you only will think it's okay when Democrats are doing it. Republicans can't.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4077 on: March 07, 2010, 04:33:22 PM »

Having people vote accross state lines is ridiculous and wrong, period. People should be voting in their home state. You are crazy for saying that is okay, but of course, you only will think it's okay when Democrats are doing it. Republicans can't.

Republicans didn't because they had no real opportunities for doing so. They had their own must-win races and no easy pick-offs from 2004. Obama won every state that either Gore won in 2000 or Kerry won in 2004 by at least 9%.   

I am talking about people changing their legal residence -- which implies getting a new driver's license, changing auto registration, and finding a legal residence. People do that all the time. A temporarily-transplanted New Yorker might have to abandon his right to vote in New York so that he can vote in North Carolina... but that applies whether one did so so that one becomes a store manager after being an assistant store manager, too.
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4078 on: March 07, 2010, 05:39:20 PM »

Having people vote accross state lines is ridiculous and wrong, period. People should be voting in their home state. You are crazy for saying that is okay, but of course, you only will think it's okay when Democrats are doing it. Republicans can't.

Republicans didn't because they had no real opportunities for doing so. They had their own must-win races and no easy pick-offs from 2004. Obama won every state that either Gore won in 2000 or Kerry won in 2004 by at least 9%.   

I am talking about people changing their legal residence -- which implies getting a new driver's license, changing auto registration, and finding a legal residence. People do that all the time. A temporarily-transplanted New Yorker might have to abandon his right to vote in New York so that he can vote in North Carolina... but that applies whether one did so so that one becomes a store manager after being an assistant store manager, too.

Way to not address what I was saying.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4079 on: March 08, 2010, 12:54:38 AM »

Having people vote accross state lines is ridiculous and wrong, period. People should be voting in their home state. You are crazy for saying that is okay, but of course, you only will think it's okay when Democrats are doing it. Republicans can't.

Republicans didn't because they had no real opportunities for doing so. They had their own must-win races and no easy pick-offs from 2004. Obama won every state that either Gore won in 2000 or Kerry won in 2004 by at least 9%.   

I am talking about people changing their legal residence -- which implies getting a new driver's license, changing auto registration, and finding a legal residence. People do that all the time. A temporarily-transplanted New Yorker might have to abandon his right to vote in New York so that he can vote in North Carolina... but that applies whether one did so so that one becomes a store manager after being an assistant store manager, too.

Way to not address what I was saying.

In case you intended to discuss the possibility of people voting multiple times in the same election (voter fraud) -- such is rare. That's just too inefficient. It's far  easier to register likely voters -- which I am proud to have done -- or to drive people to the polls. Other techniques that really can swing an election are done by political hacks and election administrators, one hopes rarely and with insignificant consequences.

Methods of vote fraud include improper handling of registration forms, creation of fictitious voters, intimidation of or interference with voters, tampering with voting devices or paraphernalia, dishonest dealings with absentee ballots, and deliberate misrepresentation of the vote count, and  misrepresentation of the counts of votes. 

Double-voting is possible with getting an absentee ballot in one state, registering in another, and voting in person in the second state. Political operatives who do so themselves can be in deep trouble if they do that. 

 
Logged
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4080 on: March 08, 2010, 02:41:24 AM »

I have no problems with people campaigning in a state different to the one in which they reside, but to change one's legal place of residence solely for the purposes of voting is a disgusting subversion of democracy.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4081 on: March 08, 2010, 08:41:06 AM »

OK, I've finally put pbrower on ignore. Enough is enough.
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 #4082 on: March 08, 2010, 09:26:34 AM »

Ohio (Rasmussen)Sad

47% Approve
52% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Ohio 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_senate_elections/ohio/toplines/toplines_ohio_senate_march_4_2010
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4083 on: March 08, 2010, 09:55:04 AM »




Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 46% (-2)

Disapprove 54% (+2)

"Strongly Approve" is at 22, -2, and is tied for his lowest number.

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4084 on: March 08, 2010, 10:15:57 AM »
« Edited: March 08, 2010, 10:18:20 AM by pbrower2a »

Ohio update:



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
5280
MagneticFree
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,404
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.97, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4085 on: March 08, 2010, 03:43:36 PM »
« Edited: March 08, 2010, 03:45:21 PM by MagneticFree »

Here's my prediction right now based on the polls and maps.

Gen REP - 290
Obama - 244

And it can change based on his performance from now until 2012 election cycle.

Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4086 on: March 08, 2010, 08:49:10 PM »



That actually puts the Republican at 280 with the new Census projections. 
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4087 on: March 09, 2010, 12:32:39 AM »

Having people vote accross state lines is ridiculous and wrong, period. People should be voting in their home state. You are crazy for saying that is okay, but of course, you only will think it's okay when Democrats are doing it. Republicans can't.

Republicans didn't because they had no real opportunities for doing so. They had their own must-win races and no easy pick-offs from 2004. Obama won every state that either Gore won in 2000 or Kerry won in 2004 by at least 9%.   

I am talking about people changing their legal residence -- which implies getting a new driver's license, changing auto registration, and finding a legal residence. People do that all the time. A temporarily-transplanted New Yorker might have to abandon his right to vote in New York so that he can vote in North Carolina... but that applies whether one did so so that one becomes a store manager after being an assistant store manager, too.

Way to not address what I was saying.

In case you intended to discuss the possibility of people voting multiple times in the same election (voter fraud) -- such is rare. That's just too inefficient. It's far  easier to register likely voters -- which I am proud to have done -- or to drive people to the polls. Other techniques that really can swing an election are done by political hacks and election administrators, one hopes rarely and with insignificant consequences.

Methods of vote fraud include improper handling of registration forms, creation of fictitious voters, intimidation of or interference with voters, tampering with voting devices or paraphernalia, dishonest dealings with absentee ballots, and deliberate misrepresentation of the vote count, and  misrepresentation of the counts of votes. 

Double-voting is possible with getting an absentee ballot in one state, registering in another, and voting in person in the second state. Political operatives who do so themselves can be in deep trouble if they do that. 

 

What I said is not a sombrero. Stop dancing around it.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4088 on: March 09, 2010, 08:21:23 AM »

Having people vote accross state lines is ridiculous and wrong, period. People should be voting in their home state. You are crazy for saying that is okay, but of course, you only will think it's okay when Democrats are doing it. Republicans can't.

Republicans didn't because they had no real opportunities for doing so. They had their own must-win races and no easy pick-offs from 2004. Obama won every state that either Gore won in 2000 or Kerry won in 2004 by at least 9%.   

I am talking about people changing their legal residence -- which implies getting a new driver's license, changing auto registration, and finding a legal residence. People do that all the time. A temporarily-transplanted New Yorker might have to abandon his right to vote in New York so that he can vote in North Carolina... but that applies whether one did so so that one becomes a store manager after being an assistant store manager, too.

Way to not address what I was saying.

In case you intended to discuss the possibility of people voting multiple times in the same election (voter fraud) -- such is rare. That's just too inefficient. It's far  easier to register likely voters -- which I am proud to have done -- or to drive people to the polls. Other techniques that really can swing an election are done by political hacks and election administrators, one hopes rarely and with insignificant consequences.

Methods of vote fraud include improper handling of registration forms, creation of fictitious voters, intimidation of or interference with voters, tampering with voting devices or paraphernalia, dishonest dealings with absentee ballots, and deliberate misrepresentation of the vote count, and  misrepresentation of the counts of votes. 

Double-voting is possible with getting an absentee ballot in one state, registering in another, and voting in person in the second state. Political operatives who do so themselves can be in deep trouble if they do that. 

 

What I said is not a sombrero. Stop dancing around it.

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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4089 on: March 09, 2010, 09:46:32 AM »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44% (-2)

Disapprove 54%

"Strongly" is unchanged.


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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4090 on: March 09, 2010, 03:18:18 PM »

Having people vote accross state lines is ridiculous and wrong, period. People should be voting in their home state. You are crazy for saying that is okay, but of course, you only will think it's okay when Democrats are doing it. Republicans can't.

Republicans didn't because they had no real opportunities for doing so. They had their own must-win races and no easy pick-offs from 2004. Obama won every state that either Gore won in 2000 or Kerry won in 2004 by at least 9%.   

I am talking about people changing their legal residence -- which implies getting a new driver's license, changing auto registration, and finding a legal residence. People do that all the time. A temporarily-transplanted New Yorker might have to abandon his right to vote in New York so that he can vote in North Carolina... but that applies whether one did so so that one becomes a store manager after being an assistant store manager, too.

Way to not address what I was saying.

In case you intended to discuss the possibility of people voting multiple times in the same election (voter fraud) -- such is rare. That's just too inefficient. It's far  easier to register likely voters -- which I am proud to have done -- or to drive people to the polls. Other techniques that really can swing an election are done by political hacks and election administrators, one hopes rarely and with insignificant consequences.

Methods of vote fraud include improper handling of registration forms, creation of fictitious voters, intimidation of or interference with voters, tampering with voting devices or paraphernalia, dishonest dealings with absentee ballots, and deliberate misrepresentation of the vote count, and  misrepresentation of the counts of votes. 

Double-voting is possible with getting an absentee ballot in one state, registering in another, and voting in person in the second state. Political operatives who do so themselves can be in deep trouble if they do that. 

 

What I said is not a sombrero. Stop dancing around it.

End of discussion.

Try answering someone, when they question your methods.
Logged
ScottM
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 299


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: 4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4091 on: March 09, 2010, 08:06:12 PM »

No combined numbers from South Carolina, but we do have some numbers from Rasmussen.

Republican primary voters: 11% approve, 88% disapprove
Democrat primary voters: 80% approve, 19% disapprove

If you assume a 50/50 split, that gives 45.5% approve, 53.5% disapprove. And, I may be wrong, but I would assume that there will probably be more Republican primary voters than Democrats.

Though, it would be nice to see some combined results.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4092 on: March 10, 2010, 09:26:02 AM »

No combined numbers from South Carolina, but we do have some numbers from Rasmussen.

Republican primary voters: 11% approve, 88% disapprove
Democrat primary voters: 80% approve, 19% disapprove

If you assume a 50/50 split, that gives 45.5% approve, 53.5% disapprove. And, I may be wrong, but I would assume that there will probably be more Republican primary voters than Democrats.

Though, it would be nice to see some combined results.

Still, that's not far from a 50-50 split in a state that hasn't gone for the Democratic nominee for President since 1976. South Carolina has given consistent results in approval ratings - high 40's for the President -- since November. I can't use it,

How people vote in primaries depends heavily on, after partisan affiliation,  whether primaries are contested. 
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 #4093 on: March 10, 2010, 10:00:34 AM »

Massachusetts (Rasmussen)Sad

54% Approve
46% Disapprove

(Sen. Scott Brown):

70% Approve
26% Disapprove

(National/Obama):

43% Approve
56% Disapprove

This state telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in the state of Massachusettes was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on March 8, 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/massachusetts/election_2010_massachusetts_governor

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/massachusetts/toplines/toplines_massachusetts_scott_brown_march_8_2010
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4094 on: March 10, 2010, 10:39:34 AM »




Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 43% (-1)

Disapprove 56% (+2)

"Strongly Approve" is at 22, unchanged.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 43%, +1.

Right now, Obama's "Total Approve," and "Strongly Approved," are tied for their lowest numbers in his presidency.  His "Total Disapproved" number is tied for the highest.

Note that "Strongly Approved" number has remained the same for three days, which could represent a bad sample.


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 #4095 on: March 10, 2010, 10:54:29 AM »

Florida (PPP)Sad

46% Approve
50% Disapprove

PPP surveyed 849 Florida voters from March 5th to 8th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-3.4%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_FL_3101025.pdf
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 #4096 on: March 10, 2010, 12:09:00 PM »

Washington (Rasmussen)Sad

50% Approve
49% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Washington was conducted by Rasmussen Reports March 9, 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/washington/toplines/toplines_2010_washington_senate_march_9_2010
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4097 on: March 10, 2010, 12:28:28 PM »

These numbers are starting to look brutal, if they hold.
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 #4098 on: March 10, 2010, 12:34:17 PM »

These numbers are starting to look brutal, if they hold.

They mostly resemble Reagan`s numbers at this point, who was also at 45% in March of '82.

So nothing to worry about yet, especially considering the horrible crop of Presidential candidates the Republicans currently have.
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 #4099 on: March 10, 2010, 01:20:24 PM »

New Hampshire (Rasmussen)Sad

48% Approve
52% Disapprove

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/new_hampshire/toplines/toplines_new_hampshire_senate_march_8_2010
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 159 160 161 162 163 [164] 165 166 167 168 169 ... 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 0.081 seconds with 13 queries.