The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 25, 2021, 06:16:02 AM

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 326 327 328 329 330 [331] 332 333 334 335 336 ... 410
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1086606 times)
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,445
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8250 on: July 14, 2011, 01:55:15 PM »

in before utah turns dark green
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,511
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8251 on: July 14, 2011, 02:07:25 PM »


Such would still amaze me.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,445
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8252 on: July 14, 2011, 03:41:27 PM »


As a wise man once said, much can and will happen in the next 29+ months -- and will.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,511
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8253 on: July 14, 2011, 04:50:07 PM »

This poor rating for the President is credible.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Badly as President Obama appeals to Utah voters, Sarah Palin almost does as badly.

Current map:


 


Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60%-69% disapproval); 90% red if >70%
40-42% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
43% to 45% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Yellow  
46-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow  
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)

<50%  Approval greater: 20% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-59%: 60% Green
60%+: 80% Green


Months (All polls are from 2010 or 2011):

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), or more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Partisan polls and polls for special interests (trade associations, labor unions, ethnic associations) are excluded.

Z- no recent poll

Or here:

MY CURRENT PREDICTION OF THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

(before any campaigning begins in earnest)Sad

assuming no significant changes before early 2012 -- snicker, snicker!




           
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 120
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   119
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 77
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 54
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 53
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   16





44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 45%, 5% at 46% or 47%, 4% between 48% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 52% or 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

This model applies only to incumbents, who have plenty of advantages but not enough to rescue an unqualified failure.

Here's the rationale:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/myth-of-incumbent-50-rule.html

...and I am less charitable to an incumbent President than is Nate Silver.


But --

I have added a yellow category for states in which President Obama defeats all recognized major GOP nominees (so far Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, Palin, and where available, Thune, Daniels, Christie, and Pawlenty). This will be a yellow category supplanting those in pale blue or and white.

I am also adding a green category for those states that would otherwise be in white, pale pink, or pale blue This can be rescinded as one of the potential nominees drops out formally or is rendered irrelevant in primaries. I am also adding a deep green color for states in which  only the 'right' nominee has a chance. So far I will label that as "H" for Huckabee or else Obama, "R" for Romney or else Obama, or other initials as appropriate for  anyone else (Gingrich? Daniels? Thune?) should such cases emerge. A tan color is used for a tie.







             
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 122
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   113
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 83
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 0
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  11
orange                        close, but Obama loses against any major Republican candidate 3
Obama wins against all but  Romney 23
Obama ties one candidate, but defeats everyone else  35
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 87
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  18  





Logged
Dgov
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,558
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8254 on: July 14, 2011, 05:57:29 PM »

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 49, +1.

Disapprove 50%, -1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 26%, +3.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 38%, u.

I'd suspect a bad sample may be moving through the system; a 5 point Strongly Approve in two days is a bit high.



Wait a few days. Maybe President Obama won the budget squabble, the pitched battle that Congressional Republicans set for him.

Well, from these polls it looks like just the opposite happened:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148487/Republican-Candidate-Extends-Lead-Obama.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=plaintextlink&utm_term=Politics

Obama's down 47-39 to Generic Republican for re-election in Gallup

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/generic_presidential_ballot/election_2012_generic_presidential_ballot

And down 48-43 to Generic Republican in Rass.

Both represent his worst showing yet in either poll.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,904
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8255 on: July 14, 2011, 08:27:55 PM »

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 49, +1.

Disapprove 50%, -1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 26%, +3.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 38%, u.

I'd suspect a bad sample may be moving through the system; a 5 point Strongly Approve in two days is a bit high.



Wait a few days. Maybe President Obama won the budget squabble, the pitched battle that Congressional Republicans set for him.

Those figures were from before that walkout, and, even if they were, they'd be more like to show in the Approve numbers much more strongly.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,904
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8256 on: July 15, 2011, 08:42:24 AM »

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 48, -1.

Disapprove 51%, -+1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 27%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 39%, +1.

A 6 point gain in Strongly Approve in three days is more than a bit high.  Smiley

Logged
CJK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 671
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8257 on: July 15, 2011, 12:30:11 PM »

Obama Approval Rating June 2011 (Gallup)

46% Approve

46% Disapprove

Trends for comparison:

Carter: 29/57 (June 1979)

Reagan: 45/46 (June 1983)

Bush I: 72/21 (June 1991)

Clinton: 47/42 (June 1995)

Bush II: 62/34 (June 2003)
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,540
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8258 on: July 15, 2011, 01:24:09 PM »

Obama Approval Rating June 2011 (Gallup)

46% Approve

46% Disapprove

Trends for comparison:

Carter: 29/57 (June 1979)

Reagan: 45/46 (June 1983)

Bush I: 72/21 (June 1991)

Clinton: 47/42 (June 1995)

Bush II: 62/34 (June 2003)


Its interesting how Obama and Reagan have very similar approval graphs on Gallup so far (the only major differences are the Tuscon and Bin Laden bounces).
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,904
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8259 on: July 15, 2011, 01:46:51 PM »

Obama Approval Rating June 2011 (Gallup)

46% Approve

46% Disapprove

Trends for comparison:

Carter: 29/57 (June 1979)

Reagan: 45/46 (June 1983)

Bush I: 72/21 (June 1991)

Clinton: 47/42 (June 1995)

Bush II: 62/34 (June 2003)


Its interesting how Obama and Reagan have very similar approval graphs on Gallup so far (the only major differences are the Tuscon and Bin Laden bounces).

Actually Reagan was upswing at this point, off from a low of 35%, IIRC.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,524
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8260 on: July 15, 2011, 06:53:20 PM »

Obama Approval Rating June 2011 (Gallup)

46% Approve

46% Disapprove

Trends for comparison:

Carter: 29/57 (June 1979)

Reagan: 45/46 (June 1983)

Bush I: 72/21 (June 1991)

Clinton: 47/42 (June 1995)

Bush II: 62/34 (June 2003)


Its interesting how Obama and Reagan have very similar approval graphs on Gallup so far (the only major differences are the Tuscon and Bin Laden bounces).

Actually Reagan was upswing at this point, off from a low of 35%, IIRC.

Technically, Obama is on average, up from his lows in August of 2010.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,051


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8261 on: July 15, 2011, 07:37:46 PM »

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,257


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8262 on: July 15, 2011, 08:16:39 PM »

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.

No President gets reelected with a 40% approval rating. 
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,340
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.97, S: -1.57

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8263 on: July 15, 2011, 08:19:48 PM »

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.

No President gets reelected with a 40% approval rating. 
Prove it.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,904
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8264 on: July 15, 2011, 08:28:44 PM »

Obama Approval Rating June 2011 (Gallup)

46% Approve

46% Disapprove

Trends for comparison:

Carter: 29/57 (June 1979)

Reagan: 45/46 (June 1983)

Bush I: 72/21 (June 1991)

Clinton: 47/42 (June 1995)

Bush II: 62/34 (June 2003)


Its interesting how Obama and Reagan have very similar approval graphs on Gallup so far (the only major differences are the Tuscon and Bin Laden bounces).

Actually Reagan was upswing at this point, off from a low of 35%, IIRC.

Technically, Obama is on average, up from his lows in August of 2010.

Within the MOE.  I don't think Obama has troughed at this point.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,511
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8265 on: July 16, 2011, 07:48:01 AM »
« Edited: July 16, 2011, 12:28:43 PM by pbrower2a »

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.

No President gets reelected with a 40% approval rating.  
Prove it.

Counter-proof: Harry S. Truman. His approval ratings, not surprisingly, went north and south with the position of the UN forces in Korea in a frontal war with clear advances and setbacks, not to mention the prospect at one point of utter defeat. The last Gallup poll for him (September) showed his Presidency on the brink of defeat. Gallup quit publishing polls that month out of a concern that such polls might influence the results.

You do remember the headline of the Chicago Tribune:

DEWEY WINS

Some people were very confident that Harry Truman would lose  -- big -- having been such an abject failure. There was even a song made for the occasion:

Congratulations! Tom Dewey.
You won by a landslide today
Through thick and through thin
We knew you would win
'Cause who'd ever vote
To let Truman stay in!
Congratulations, Tom Dewey
Your republican dreams have come true!
Here's a victory roar
For President Number Thirty-Four!
The White House is waiting for you!

Election Day 1948 was an abject disaster for Republicans. Truman was gaining on the Republicans throughout the early autumn of 1948, and a bunch of Republican Congressmen elected in 1946 were defeated. The only big positive for the Republicans was that they held an open seat in Michigan with a young lawyer named Gerald Ford.  
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,904
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8266 on: July 16, 2011, 09:02:02 AM »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47, -1.

Disapprove 52%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 26%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 41%, +2.

I still think there is a bad sample about to drop out.
Logged
Yelnoc
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,005
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8267 on: July 16, 2011, 11:00:06 AM »

Here's a map of Obama vs. Republican polls I cooked up.  I did not count poll options that had a candidate who wasn't running winning or losing to Obama and instead took the declared candidate (usually Romney, sometimes an average of running candidates).  I also through out the Tennessee Poll, which I think is junk. 



When we add in the Kerry states for Obama and McCain states for the Republican, the map looks like the one below, with only Indiana unpolled.

Logged
Mr.Phips
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,257


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8268 on: July 16, 2011, 11:33:27 PM »

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.

No President gets reelected with a 40% approval rating. 
Prove it.

Here:

2004 Bush 48% Approval Won Reelection
1996 Clinton 54% Approval Won Reelection
1992 Bush 34% Approval Lost Reelection
1984 Reagan 58% Approval Won Reelection
1980 Carter 37% Approval Lost Reelection
1976 Ford 45% Approval Lost Reelection
1972 Nixon 56% Approval Won Reelection
1964 Johnson 74% Approval Won Reelection
1956 Eisenhower 68% Approval Won Reelection
1948 Truman stopped polling after July 1948

Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,249
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8269 on: July 17, 2011, 01:54:18 AM »

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.

No President gets reelected with a 40% approval rating. 
Prove it.

Here:

2004 Bush 48% Approval Won Reelection
1996 Clinton 54% Approval Won Reelection
1992 Bush 34% Approval Lost Reelection
1984 Reagan 58% Approval Won Reelection
1980 Carter 37% Approval Lost Reelection
1976 Ford 45% Approval Lost Reelection
1972 Nixon 56% Approval Won Reelection
1964 Johnson 74% Approval Won Reelection
1956 Eisenhower 68% Approval Won Reelection
1948 Truman stopped polling after July 1948



Looking at Bush and Ford, looks like 46-47% is the limit.
Logged
Umengus
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,289
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8270 on: July 17, 2011, 02:56:48 AM »

if Obama is at 40 % on election day, he will win against Palin but he will lose against Romney or Perry. Opponents count.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,904
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8271 on: July 17, 2011, 10:00:49 AM »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45, -2.

Disapprove 54%, +2.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, +1.

Possibly a bad sample dropping out, but not where I though it was.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,511
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8272 on: July 17, 2011, 10:08:03 AM »

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.

No President gets reelected with a 40% approval rating. 
Prove it.

Here:

2004 Bush 48% Approval Won Reelection
1996 Clinton 54% Approval Won Reelection
1992 Bush 34% Approval Lost Reelection
1984 Reagan 58% Approval Won Reelection
1980 Carter 37% Approval Lost Reelection
1976 Ford 45% Approval Lost Reelection
1972 Nixon 56% Approval Won Reelection
1964 Johnson 74% Approval Won Reelection
1956 Eisenhower 68% Approval Won Reelection
1948 Truman stopped polling after July 1948



Looking at Bush and Ford, looks like 46-47% is the limit.

About right.

Having an effective campaign apparatus and not having an effective campaign apparatus may have been the difference between Ford 1976 and Bush 2004. Ford had no idea of how to run an effective campaign beyond a Congressional district, and the effective campaign apparatus (CREEP) of Nixon in 1972 was unusable. The Ford campaign made incredible blunders in using its resources. Ford at most would have won a nailbiter; he was not a great President, and the inflationary economy in a recession (stagflation) was not good for convincing anyone of the economic stewardship of the Administration. Dubya may have been a dreadful President, but the damage yet to do its damage had yet to manifest itself, and he got re-elected. He had been elected... sort of... but his campaign machine knew what to do.  

Add 5% to the polling for 2004 and you get the electoral result. Add 3% to the polling for 1976 and you get the result. Such is the difference between a President who had no idea of how to get elected outside a Congressional district and one had shown that he could be elected beforehand. (Of course, had the Iraq war gone badly or the speculative boom gone bust before the election, then he would have lost. He could have lost much like Jimmy Carter in 1976 had such happened).

The others:

1952 -- Dwight Eisenhower was wildly popular, but a natural ceiling of about 62% of the popular vote exists for any incumbent. Eisenhower didn't have much of a campaign, and didn't need one against the Democrat that he had defeated handily. Eisenhower fell short of that campaign largely because Southern segregationists distrusted him. They were morally wrong, but right about their observation.

1964 -- LBJ ran against someone easily depicted as a reckless extremist. He didn't need much of a campaign. The 62% ceiling for an incumbent President applies.

1972 -- Even with a ruthless campaign, Nixon was able to get 'only' about a 5% gain against someone that his campaign (and much else) depicted as an extremist.

1976 -- See above. Ford could have won against a weak challenger who wasn't that different in ideology.

1980 -- The Carter Presidency was certifiably of the weakest in post-WWII history, with few achievements to create a record and stagflation to wreck whatever chance he had of getting re-elected. The Carter campaign did the best that it could with the material that it had, gaining about 4% in the popular vote. There was an independent candidate (John Anderson) who might have cut into his vote share. Independent and third-party candidates can muck things up, and John Anderson may have won many votes of disgruntled Carter voters from 1976 who couldn't quite vote for Ronald Reagan. This one gets murky beyond saying that Carter would never have won in 1980.

1984 -- Reagan won about 58% of the popular vote, which is much less than the norm for the landslide in electoral votes that he got. It's hard to remember the re-election campaign of Ronald Reagan, so it probably wasn't great. Walter Mondale was no extremist -- a very conventional Democrat -- so the electoral circumstances weren't quite those of 1964 or 1972. No gain -- but a President who achieves his promises will win.

1992 and 1996 -- Third-party and independent candidacies muck things up. I can draw no conclusions, except that Bill Clinton would have won a bigger share of the popular vote without Ross Perot around.

2004. See above.

2012. Just watch events unfold. The electoral machine of Barack Obama and a repetition of the proved competence of this politician as a campaigner should give him about a 5% gain against his approval rating against someone that his staff can't dismiss as an extremist (probably Romney, maybe Huntsman, Pawlenty, Giuliani, or Huckabee) or about 7% against someone that his campaign can depict as an extremist (names withheld for reasons of decency). Of course opponents count, but some things about this President really are set in stone.  
Logged
Mr.Phips
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,257


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8273 on: July 17, 2011, 04:48:19 PM »

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.

No President gets reelected with a 40% approval rating. 
Prove it.

Here:

2004 Bush 48% Approval Won Reelection
1996 Clinton 54% Approval Won Reelection
1992 Bush 34% Approval Lost Reelection
1984 Reagan 58% Approval Won Reelection
1980 Carter 37% Approval Lost Reelection
1976 Ford 45% Approval Lost Reelection
1972 Nixon 56% Approval Won Reelection
1964 Johnson 74% Approval Won Reelection
1956 Eisenhower 68% Approval Won Reelection
1948 Truman stopped polling after July 1948



Looking at Bush and Ford, looks like 46-47% is the limit.

About right.

Having an effective campaign apparatus and not having an effective campaign apparatus may have been the difference between Ford 1976 and Bush 2004. Ford had no idea of how to run an effective campaign beyond a Congressional district, and the effective campaign apparatus (CREEP) of Nixon in 1972 was unusable. The Ford campaign made incredible blunders in using its resources. Ford at most would have won a nailbiter; he was not a great President, and the inflationary economy in a recession (stagflation) was not good for convincing anyone of the economic stewardship of the Administration. Dubya may have been a dreadful President, but the damage yet to do its damage had yet to manifest itself, and he got re-elected. He had been elected... sort of... but his campaign machine knew what to do.  

Add 5% to the polling for 2004 and you get the electoral result. Add 3% to the polling for 1976 and you get the result. Such is the difference between a President who had no idea of how to get elected outside a Congressional district and one had shown that he could be elected beforehand. (Of course, had the Iraq war gone badly or the speculative boom gone bust before the election, then he would have lost. He could have lost much like Jimmy Carter in 1976 had such happened).

The others:

1952 -- Dwight Eisenhower was wildly popular, but a natural ceiling of about 62% of the popular vote exists for any incumbent. Eisenhower didn't have much of a campaign, and didn't need one against the Democrat that he had defeated handily. Eisenhower fell short of that campaign largely because Southern segregationists distrusted him. They were morally wrong, but right about their observation.

1964 -- LBJ ran against someone easily depicted as a reckless extremist. He didn't need much of a campaign. The 62% ceiling for an incumbent President applies.

1972 -- Even with a ruthless campaign, Nixon was able to get 'only' about a 5% gain against someone that his campaign (and much else) depicted as an extremist.

1976 -- See above. Ford could have won against a weak challenger who wasn't that different in ideology.

1980 -- The Carter Presidency was certifiably of the weakest in post-WWII history, with few achievements to create a record and stagflation to wreck whatever chance he had of getting re-elected. The Carter campaign did the best that it could with the material that it had, gaining about 4% in the popular vote. There was an independent candidate (John Anderson) who might have cut into his vote share. Independent and third-party candidates can muck things up, and John Anderson may have won many votes of disgruntled Carter voters from 1976 who couldn't quite vote for Ronald Reagan. This one gets murky beyond saying that Carter would never have won in 1980.

1984 -- Reagan won about 58% of the popular vote, which is much less than the norm for the landslide in electoral votes that he got. It's hard to remember the re-election campaign of Ronald Reagan, so it probably wasn't great. Walter Mondale was no extremist -- a very conventional Democrat -- so the electoral circumstances weren't quite those of 1964 or 1972. No gain -- but a President who achieves his promises will win.

1992 and 1996 -- Third-party and independent candidacies muck things up. I can draw no conclusions, except that Bill Clinton would have won a bigger share of the popular vote without Ross Perot around.

2004. See above.

2012. Just watch events unfold. The electoral machine of Barack Obama and a repetition of the proved competence of this politician as a campaigner should give him about a 5% gain against his approval rating against someone that his staff can't dismiss as an extremist (probably Romney, maybe Huntsman, Pawlenty, Giuliani, or Huckabee) or about 7% against someone that his campaign can depict as an extremist (names withheld for reasons of decency). Of course opponents count, but some things about this President really are set in stone.  

Obama is vastly overrated as a campaigner.  If he was that great, he would have been able to go out in 2010 and sharply reduce Democratic losses.  In 2008, he ran a mediocre campaign and was only saved by the fact that the unemployment rate increased by over a percentage point during the campaign and that consumer confidence was so low.  No incumbent party survives that. 
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,511
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8274 on: July 17, 2011, 06:53:26 PM »

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.

No President gets reelected with a 40% approval rating. 
Prove it.

Here:

2004 Bush 48% Approval Won Reelection
1996 Clinton 54% Approval Won Reelection
1992 Bush 34% Approval Lost Reelection
1984 Reagan 58% Approval Won Reelection
1980 Carter 37% Approval Lost Reelection
1976 Ford 45% Approval Lost Reelection
1972 Nixon 56% Approval Won Reelection
1964 Johnson 74% Approval Won Reelection
1956 Eisenhower 68% Approval Won Reelection
1948 Truman stopped polling after July 1948



Looking at Bush and Ford, looks like 46-47% is the limit.

About right.

Having an effective campaign apparatus and not having an effective campaign apparatus may have been the difference between Ford 1976 and Bush 2004. Ford had no idea of how to run an effective campaign beyond a Congressional district, and the effective campaign apparatus (CREEP) of Nixon in 1972 was unusable. The Ford campaign made incredible blunders in using its resources. Ford at most would have won a nailbiter; he was not a great President, and the inflationary economy in a recession (stagflation) was not good for convincing anyone of the economic stewardship of the Administration. Dubya may have been a dreadful President, but the damage yet to do its damage had yet to manifest itself, and he got re-elected. He had been elected... sort of... but his campaign machine knew what to do.  

Add 5% to the polling for 2004 and you get the electoral result. Add 3% to the polling for 1976 and you get the result. Such is the difference between a President who had no idea of how to get elected outside a Congressional district and one had shown that he could be elected beforehand. (Of course, had the Iraq war gone badly or the speculative boom gone bust before the election, then he would have lost. He could have lost much like Jimmy Carter in 1976 had such happened).

The others:

1952 -- Dwight Eisenhower was wildly popular, but a natural ceiling of about 62% of the popular vote exists for any incumbent. Eisenhower didn't have much of a campaign, and didn't need one against the Democrat that he had defeated handily. Eisenhower fell short of that campaign largely because Southern segregationists distrusted him. They were morally wrong, but right about their observation.

1964 -- LBJ ran against someone easily depicted as a reckless extremist. He didn't need much of a campaign. The 62% ceiling for an incumbent President applies.

1972 -- Even with a ruthless campaign, Nixon was able to get 'only' about a 5% gain against someone that his campaign (and much else) depicted as an extremist.

1976 -- See above. Ford could have won against a weak challenger who wasn't that different in ideology.

1980 -- The Carter Presidency was certifiably of the weakest in post-WWII history, with few achievements to create a record and stagflation to wreck whatever chance he had of getting re-elected. The Carter campaign did the best that it could with the material that it had, gaining about 4% in the popular vote. There was an independent candidate (John Anderson) who might have cut into his vote share. Independent and third-party candidates can muck things up, and John Anderson may have won many votes of disgruntled Carter voters from 1976 who couldn't quite vote for Ronald Reagan. This one gets murky beyond saying that Carter would never have won in 1980.

1984 -- Reagan won about 58% of the popular vote, which is much less than the norm for the landslide in electoral votes that he got. It's hard to remember the re-election campaign of Ronald Reagan, so it probably wasn't great. Walter Mondale was no extremist -- a very conventional Democrat -- so the electoral circumstances weren't quite those of 1964 or 1972. No gain -- but a President who achieves his promises will win.

1992 and 1996 -- Third-party and independent candidacies muck things up. I can draw no conclusions, except that Bill Clinton would have won a bigger share of the popular vote without Ross Perot around.

2004. See above.

2012. Just watch events unfold. The electoral machine of Barack Obama and a repetition of the proved competence of this politician as a campaigner should give him about a 5% gain against his approval rating against someone that his staff can't dismiss as an extremist (probably Romney, maybe Huntsman, Pawlenty, Giuliani, or Huckabee) or about 7% against someone that his campaign can depict as an extremist (names withheld for reasons of decency). Of course opponents count, but some things about this President really are set in stone.  

Obama is vastly overrated as a campaigner.  If he was that great, he would have been able to go out in 2010 and sharply reduce Democratic losses.  In 2008, he ran a mediocre campaign and was only saved by the fact that the unemployment rate increased by over a percentage point during the campaign and that consumer confidence was so low.  No incumbent party survives that. 

Overrated?

1. He won Indiana, a state that Republican nominees for President simply do not lose. Sure, the President won under freakish circumstances, but the state was close all summer and fall.

2. He won Virginia, a state that Republican nominees for President simply do not lose, by a substantial margin. Virginia did not have one of the most ravaged economies in America.

3. He won North Carolina, a state that democrats had largely written off since 1980.

4. He did unusually well in Suburbia, suggesting that he had found a weakness in the usual appeals of Republicans in Suburbia -- tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts because your boss will be impressed.

This politician knows how to recognize weaknesses in his opposition and exploit them for every advantage more effectively than the usual nominee. He did not seek out opportunities that no longer existed.  Basically, he didn't campaign to win states that were out of reach that Bill Clinton won handily.

But even if you see his weaknesses as a politician -- basically that he can't successfully appeal to people in rural and small-town America -- you must admit that his campaign applied advertising funds effectively, cutting them off when they were futile and where the President was so far ahead (in states) that further saturation might be the difference between winning 56% of the vote and 59% of the vote.

He does not win where government services are available cheaply, so I expect him to do badly in the Great Plains states.

2010 -- he campaigned little. He was too busy with Congress. In 2012 that will be very different.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 326 327 328 329 330 [331] 332 333 334 335 336 ... 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 0.198 seconds with 13 queries.