The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[Penelope]

Joe,

He's not getting 50% anywhere besides perhaps the Washington Post poll.

Ras's 51% disapproval is as hardened as you can get.  That number isn't improving even if the economy comes back dramatically.  If you believe Rasmussen, Obama's goose is cooked.

By this logic both Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan should be one term Presidents.

[Poundingtherock]

By your logic, if Obama gets over 50%, he's guaranteed to win just like George H.W. Bush was in 1991.

[pbrower2a]

1. "It's the economy, stupid".

Sure, I would have rather seen the Democrats fare better in the 2010 election, but President Obama is practically in a "heads, I win/tails, you lose" situation, If the economy improves between now and November 2012, then he gets to claim that his policies made the recovery possible. If the economy falters and the GOP chooses to thwart every measure that President Obama offers and offers only pay cuts to the non-rich and new tax cuts for the super-rich, then President wins much as Truman did in 1948 by running against a "Do-Nothing" or even "Do-Wrong" Congress.  To be sure, President Obama would have to be the competent adult in the latter scenario, but that would be enough with which to win.

2. Foreign policy.

President Obama has been very effective at creating a better image for America than was his predecessor. American combat troops are out of Iraq, and the President seems to be heading to a definitive solution for Afghanistan. No longer being in a war that we should never have stumbled into and getting out of one that should have been concluded earlier is a position of strength in a genuine campaign. The 2012 electoral campaign has yet to begin, but foreign policy is one thing on which President Obama can hammer some Republicans -- like those who opposed the renewal of the START Treaty with Russia.

The military vote has typically been right-leaning, nit it can vote for a President successful at extricating

3. The 112th Congress.

The House of Representatives will have a rigid Hard Right majority. It will quite possible go for the most extreme positions that Americans will have known.  Unless the Hard Right succeeds at winning over America -- it is on probation -- Obama wins.

[Penelope]

By your logic, if Obama gets over 50%, he's guaranteed to win just like George H.W. Bush was in 1991.

Actually no. If Obama gets over 50% he'll just be better off to win. GHWB had high approvals right up to 1992, and then fell sharply. Such is the trend with Presidents like Carter, Bush 41, and Bush 43. They tend to have high approvals, maintain them for a while, and then see a sharp decline in their approval ratings.

[pbrower2a]

By your logic, if Obama gets over 50%, he's guaranteed to win just like George H.W. Bush was in 1991.

Actually no. If Obama gets over 50% he'll just be better off to win. GHWB had high approvals right up to 1992, and then fell sharply. Such is the trend with Presidents like Carter, Bush 41, and Bush 43. They tend to have high approvals, maintain them for a while, and then see a sharp decline in their approval ratings.

Absolutely. Carter failed as a President to a large extent (even if the Iranian Hostage Crisis hadn't occurred) because of a paucity of legislative achievements as President. Ronald Reagan may have been an unusually-strong candidate in 1980, but Carter would likely have lost to a far-weaker campaigner than Reagan because Carter would have had to make fresh promises to do things that he hadn't done as President in his first term.  The elder Bush failed because he rested on his laurels as President; I am not entirely sure that his heart was into a second term. Dubya bungled his way from an approval rate of 91% to one in the 20s, but not fast enough to lose a bid for a second term. A stronger candidate than John Kerry, or at least one with a better strategy for winning against a poor President, would have beaten Dubya.

Like the results or not, Obama has achieved more pieces of legislation than any President in two years than some have in eight. To this point he has every advantage over Jimmy Carter. If he achieves anything with the GOP-dominated Congress he shows himself as the new Ronald Reagan; if he achieves little that he presents as reasonable (that Americans generally recognize as reasonable), then he campaigns against Congress much as Truman did in 1948.

We have yet to see who the GOP nominee will be. Assuming that Sarah Palin proves an epic fail (and no 47-state landslide for President Obama because he faces quite possibly the worst-prepared candidate for President ever, someone who makes Dubya look by contrast a paragon of integrity, probity, and mental nimbleness), I can still predict that the GOP nominee will be tied closely to the usual narrow special interests of the contemporary GOP. 

The breakneck pace of the 111th Congress may have convinced many Americans that they want government to slow down its activity in attempts to change America. In 2012 they might want something from Congress other than wholesale efforts to repeal everything that the 111st Congress did.

[Poundingtherock]

Brower,

Even your boys at the Daily Kos show her up in Montana, a state that Obama only lost by 3 last time with plenty more undecided Republicans than Democrats.

Explain to me how Obama wins 47 states against her if he cannot win Montana (and there's no way he would win if you look at the undecideds).

[ag]

That number isn't improving even if the economy comes back dramatically. 

That would sure be extremely unusual ))

[Sbane]

Ras's 51% disapproval is as hardened as you can get.  That number isn't improving even if the economy comes back dramatically. 

Did you pull this straight out your ass? By your logic, Obama's approval rating can't fall below 43-44% even if unemployment touches 11%.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 46%, -2.

Disapprove 53%, +2.

"Strongly Approve" is at 26%, -2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 39%, u.

Probably just a shift within range, i.e. a anti Obama coming in or a pro-Obama sample dropping out.

[Penelope]

Brower,

Even your boys at the Daily Kos show her up in Montana, a state that Obama only lost by 3 last time with plenty more undecided Republicans than Democrats.

Explain to me how Obama wins 47 states against her if he cannot win Montana (and there's no way he would win if you look at the undecideds).

You realize there's this whole five month process of campaigning, which includes three debates, and would likely change the landscape of any election by November?

[pbrower2a]

Brower,

Even your boys at the Daily Kos show her up in Montana, a state that Obama only lost by 3 last time with plenty more undecided Republicans than Democrats.

Explain to me how Obama wins 47 states against her if he cannot win Montana (and there's no way he would win if you look at the undecideds).

Sarah Palin would make such a fool of herself that she could lose 47 states. One of those 47 would be Montana. Others would include Nebraska and Kansas, where people might be conservatives but not insane. Except for smoking, President Obama acts more like a Mormon than does Sarah Palin.

[Poundingtherock]

Neither of you understand that if someone isn't willing to vote for Obama now, he or she will never be willing to vote for Obama, especially in the matchups with Palin.

What Obama is getting against her now is all that he's going to get.  He has no room to grow in a matchup against her.  All of his base is already voting for him and if a swing voter isn't voting for Obama now, he or she will be voting for her.

[J. J.]

1. "It's the economy, stupid".

Sure, I would have rather seen the Democrats fare better in the 2010 election, but President Obama is practically in a "heads, I win/tails, you lose" situation, If the economy improves between now and November 2012, then he gets to claim that his policies made the recovery possible. If the economy falters and the GOP chooses to thwart every measure that President Obama offers and offers only pay cuts to the non-rich and new tax cuts for the super-rich, then President wins much as Truman did in 1948 by running against a "Do-Nothing" or even "Do-Wrong" Congress.  To be sure, President Obama would have to be the competent adult in the latter scenario, but that would be enough with which to win.

It's still the economy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The supposed Obama Effect overseas never materialized.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the Democrats are in control of the Senate.

[Iosif]

How big is the Bradley effect going to be in 2012 J. J.?

[Poundingtherock]

Pbrower,

So Mormons don't have kids who become decorated military veterans?

Or Mormons have kids who spend time in racist churches where they learn about how the CIA created the HIV Virus to kill white people?

Or Mormons consumed crack cocaine (you've already noted the smoking)?  Or Mormons make real estate arrangements with convicted felons?

This one was too easy.

[ag]

Neither of you understand that if someone isn't willing to vote for Obama now, he or she will never be willing to vote for Obama, especially in the matchups with Palin.

This is a nicely definite statement, but it would also be nice to figure out what it is based on (rather than the ushakeable faith in it being correct )) .

[Zarn]

Neither of you understand that if someone isn't willing to vote for Obama now, he or she will never be willing to vote for Obama, especially in the matchups with Palin.

What Obama is getting against her now is all that he's going to get.  He has no room to grow in a matchup against her.  All of his base is already voting for him and if a swing voter isn't voting for Obama now, he or she will be voting for her.

I'm a registered Republican. I will not vote for Palin, under any circumstances. I'm not the only one. I would sooner vote 3rd party or for Obi-Wan Kenobi than vote for Palin or Obama.

[Sbane]

Neither of you understand that if someone isn't willing to vote for Obama now, he or she will never be willing to vote for Obama, especially in the matchups with Palin.

What Obama is getting against her now is all that he's going to get.  He has no room to grow in a matchup against her.  All of his base is already voting for him and if a swing voter isn't voting for Obama now, he or she will be voting for her.

So the economy doesn't matter at all? You don't think that if unemployment magically falls to 7.5%, that more people might change their minds? Or Democrats who are discouraged to vote currently due to the economy, might actually turn out?

Obama's numbers against Palin amongst the more educated and prosperous population may be maxed out, but I don't think that is the case with the population at large.

[Tender Branson]

Obama slightly up during the year at Rasmussen:

31-12-2010: 48% Approve, 51% Disapprove (25% Strongly Approve, 37% Strongly Disapprove)

31-12-2009: 46% Approve, 53% Disapprove (24% Strongly Approve, 42% Strongly Disapprove)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 48%, +2.

Disapprove 51%, -2.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 37%, -1.

(I think I'll wait to mid week to sort this one out.)

[J. J.]

Obama slightly up during the year at Rasmussen:

31-12-2010: 48% Approve, 51% Disapprove (25% Strongly Approve, 37% Strongly Disapprove)

31-12-2009: 46% Approve, 53% Disapprove (24% Strongly Approve, 42% Strongly Disapprove)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

Actually, Obama's numbers dropped over the summer and hit the low point (looking at the range over the month).  He improved a bit after that.

[You kip if you want to...]

Obama slightly up during the year at Rasmussen:

31-12-2010: 48% Approve, 51% Disapprove (25% Strongly Approve, 37% Strongly Disapprove)

31-12-2009: 46% Approve, 53% Disapprove (24% Strongly Approve, 42% Strongly Disapprove)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

If you take out the inauguration bounce, it'd be more impressive.

[Poundingtherock]

Magellan(R) in Nebraska: 36/60 favorable/unfavorable

That comes out to a 47/49 favorable/unfavorable rating nationally.

http://www.magellanstrategies.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Magellan-Nebraska-2012-US-Senate-Survey-Release-122210.pdf

[pbrower2a]

Magellan(R) in Nebraska: 36/60 favorable/unfavorable

That comes out to a 47/49 favorable/unfavorable rating nationally.

http://www.magellanstrategies.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Magellan-Nebraska-2012-US-Senate-Survey-Release-122210.pdf

Because Magellan Strategies has ties predominately to the GOP and its candidate, its poll will not be shown on my map.

Don't worry. Within a couple of months there will be plenty of polls on the popularity of incoming Governors and Senators. Greatest attention will be paid to those who have taken over in states that have recently voted largely on the blue side of purple. Honeymoons will likely be short, especially if those politicians seem to better fit the political norms of Oklahoma or Alabama instead of Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.

[Tender Branson]

Magellan(R) in Nebraska: 36/60 favorable/unfavorable

That comes out to a 47/49 favorable/unfavorable rating nationally.

http://www.magellanstrategies.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Magellan-Nebraska-2012-US-Senate-Survey-Release-122210.pdf

Because Magellan Strategies has ties predominately to the GOP and its candidate, its poll will not be shown on my map.

Don't worry. Within a couple of months there will be plenty of polls on the popularity of incoming Governors and Senators. Greatest attention will be paid to those who have taken over in states that have recently voted largely on the blue side of purple. Honeymoons will likely be short, especially if those politicians seem to better fit the political norms of Oklahoma or Alabama instead of Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.

It should mostly not be shown on your map because it's FAVORABLES, not APPROVAL ratings.