The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[J. J.]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

Approve: 50%, u


Disapprove: 44%, u

[King]

^^lol

Anyway, your election rules already say that Romney has lost, so I don't know why we even need this thread anymore.

The corollary to J. J.'s First Rule is:  Never trust just one poll.  Trust several and remember that the electorate changes its mind quickly.

I'm looking at trending.

Oh so the rule doesn't count if the candidate you support says he doesn't look at/trust the polls. Gotcha.

Well, by using the standard you used yesterday, Romney just won.  

J. J., your first rule of elections is that if a candidate and his campaign talk about not paying attention to the polls, then that candidate will lose.  The Romney campaign released a press release saying not to worry about the latest polls--not one poll, not two specific polls, all of the polls.  It then went on detail while polls are not accurate or useful or mean that an election is over.

If Obama had released as statement saying this, what would your response be?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

^^lol

Anyway, your election rules already say that Romney has lost, so I don't know why we even need this thread anymore.

The corollary to J. J.'s First Rule is:  Never trust just one poll.  Trust several and remember that the electorate changes its mind quickly.

I'm looking at trending.

Oh so the rule doesn't count if the candidate you support says he doesn't look at/trust the polls. Gotcha.

Well, by using the standard you used yesterday, Romney just won. 

J. J., your first rule of elections is that if a candidate and his campaign talk about not paying attention to the polls, then that candidate will lose.  The Romney campaign released a press release saying not to worry about the latest polls--not one poll, not two specific polls, all of the polls.  It then went on detail while polls are not accurate or useful or mean that an election is over.

If Obama had released as statement saying this, what would your response be?

Not just the campaign, Mitt Romney himself:

Related:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey J. J.!

[King]

Yeah, that too.  I don't understand how J. J. is spinning this.  He brought up to Lief "don't look at one poll" as an excuse but that seems like a non sequitur to me.

[J. J.]

^^lol

Anyway, your election rules already say that Romney has lost, so I don't know why we even need this thread anymore.

The corollary to J. J.'s First Rule is:  Never trust just one poll.  Trust several and remember that the electorate changes its mind quickly.

I'm looking at trending.

Oh so the rule doesn't count if the candidate you support says he doesn't look at/trust the polls. Gotcha.

Well, by using the standard you used yesterday, Romney just won. 

J. J., your first rule of elections is that if a candidate and his campaign talk about not paying attention to the polls, then that candidate will lose.  The Romney campaign released a press release saying not to worry about the latest polls--not one poll, not two specific polls, all of the polls.  It then went on detail while polls are not accurate or useful or mean that an election is over.

If Obama had released as statement saying this, what would your response be?

Not just the campaign, Mitt Romney himself:

Related:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey J. J.!

Well, first of all, Romney is looking at the polls.  Secondly, he is noting that they do change over time.  It doesn't violate the rule, at all.  Sorry if you can't understand that. 

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 49%, u.

Disapprove 50%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 28%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at  43%, u.

That is close and unmoving.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

^^lol

Anyway, your election rules already say that Romney has lost, so I don't know why we even need this thread anymore.

The corollary to J. J.'s First Rule is:  Never trust just one poll.  Trust several and remember that the electorate changes its mind quickly.

I'm looking at trending.

Oh so the rule doesn't count if the candidate you support says he doesn't look at/trust the polls. Gotcha.

Well, by using the standard you used yesterday, Romney just won.  

J. J., your first rule of elections is that if a candidate and his campaign talk about not paying attention to the polls, then that candidate will lose.  The Romney campaign released a press release saying not to worry about the latest polls--not one poll, not two specific polls, all of the polls.  It then went on detail while polls are not accurate or useful or mean that an election is over.

If Obama had released as statement saying this, what would your response be?

Not just the campaign, Mitt Romney himself:

Related:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey J. J.!

Well, first of all, Romney is looking at the polls.  Secondly, he is noting that they do change over time.  It doesn't violate the rule, at all.  Sorry if you can't understand that.  

He's not looking at the polls in Virginia and Ohio -- and whoever wins Virginia and Ohio wins the election.

[J. J.]

^^lol

Anyway, your election rules already say that Romney has lost, so I don't know why we even need this thread anymore.

The corollary to J. J.'s First Rule is:  Never trust just one poll.  Trust several and remember that the electorate changes its mind quickly.

I'm looking at trending.

Oh so the rule doesn't count if the candidate you support says he doesn't look at/trust the polls. Gotcha.

Well, by using the standard you used yesterday, Romney just won.  

J. J., your first rule of elections is that if a candidate and his campaign talk about not paying attention to the polls, then that candidate will lose.  The Romney campaign released a press release saying not to worry about the latest polls--not one poll, not two specific polls, all of the polls.  It then went on detail while polls are not accurate or useful or mean that an election is over.

If Obama had released as statement saying this, what would your response be?

Not just the campaign, Mitt Romney himself:

Related:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey J. J.!

Well, first of all, Romney is looking at the polls.  Secondly, he is noting that they do change over time.  It doesn't violate the rule, at all.  Sorry if you can't understand that.  

He's not looking at the polls in Virginia and Ohio -- and whoever wins Virginia and Ohio wins the election.

Your statement is wrong on both levels.  First the polling in OH and VA is close; both are on my tossup list.  Second, I did come up with a few scenarios where Obama wins both, but loses the election.

Here is one:



It is not pretty, but it produces 270 EV's.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

^^lol

Anyway, your election rules already say that Romney has lost, so I don't know why we even need this thread anymore.

The corollary to J. J.'s First Rule is:  Never trust just one poll.  Trust several and remember that the electorate changes its mind quickly.

I'm looking at trending.

Oh so the rule doesn't count if the candidate you support says he doesn't look at/trust the polls. Gotcha.

Well, by using the standard you used yesterday, Romney just won. 

J. J., your first rule of elections is that if a candidate and his campaign talk about not paying attention to the polls, then that candidate will lose.  The Romney campaign released a press release saying not to worry about the latest polls--not one poll, not two specific polls, all of the polls.  It then went on detail while polls are not accurate or useful or mean that an election is over.

If Obama had released as statement saying this, what would your response be?

Not just the campaign, Mitt Romney himself:

Related:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey J. J.!

Well, first of all, Romney is looking at the polls.  Secondly, he is noting that they do change over time.  It doesn't violate the rule, at all.  Sorry if you can't understand that. 

He's not looking at the polls in Virginia and Ohio -- and whoever wins Virginia and Ohio wins the election.

Your statement is wrong on both levels.  First the polling in OH and VA is close; both are on my tossup list.  Second, I did come up with a few scenarios where Obama wins both, but loses the election.

Here is one:



It is not pretty, but it produces 270 EV's.

That's not just not a likely map, it's not a possible map.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Your statement is wrong on both levels.  First the polling in OH and VA is close; both are on my tossup list.  Second, I did come up with a few scenarios where Obama wins both, but loses the election.

Here is one:



It is not pretty, but it produces 270 EV's.

That's not just not a likely map, it's not a possible map.

Yeah, there's no way with the current polling that if Obama gets Ohio and Virginia that he doesn't also get at least one of the other swing states.

[J. J.]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

Approve: 49%, -1


Disapprove: 45%, +1

[J. J.]

Your statement is wrong on both levels.  First the polling in OH and VA is close; both are on my tossup list.  Second, I did come up with a few scenarios where Obama wins both, but loses the election.

Here is one:



It is not pretty, but it produces 270 EV's.

That's not just not a likely map, it's not a possible map.

Yeah, there's no way with the current polling that if Obama gets Ohio and Virginia that he doesn't also get at least one of the other swing states.

Today, Obama's lead increased in VA, according to the WP.  Romney pulled into the lead in CO, according to Rasmussen.

I could very easily see something along those lines happening.  Note that I didn't put MI in the Romney column, but that remains a possibility.  His numbers have improved, even within the same poll, there.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Your statement is wrong on both levels.  First the polling in OH and VA is close; both are on my tossup list.  Second, I did come up with a few scenarios where Obama wins both, but loses the election.

Here is one:



It is not pretty, but it produces 270 EV's.

That's not just not a likely map, it's not a possible map.

Yeah, there's no way with the current polling that if Obama gets Ohio and Virginia that he doesn't also get at least one of the other swing states.

Today, Obama's lead increased in VA, according to the WP.  Romney pulled into the lead in CO, according to Rasmussen.

I could very easily see something along those lines happening.

Yes. The kind of voters that desert Romney in Virginia and Ohio are definitely going to stay with him in Colorado, Iowa, Florida, etc.

Note that I didn't put MI in the Romney column, but that remains a possibility. 

His numbers have improved, even within the same poll, there.

Which poll are you talking about, specifically?

[J. J.]

Which poll are you talking about, specifically?

PPP.  In July, Obama had a 14 point lead; two weeks ago, it was down to 7.  Some of the lesser ones, newspapers, local pollsters, are putting it closer. Only EPIC has shown an increase off of a 3 point lead.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Which poll are you talking about, specifically?

PPP.  In July, Obama had a 14 point lead; two weeks ago, it was down to 7.  Some of the lesser ones, newspapers, local pollsters, are putting it closer. Only EPIC has shown an increase off of a 3 point lead.

A 7-point lead doesn't make Michigan a "possibility" for Romney. And considering Michigan-only-pollsters' ludicrous bias, you can't count FMW's latest nonsense.

[J. J.]

Which poll are you talking about, specifically?

PPP.  In July, Obama had a 14 point lead; two weeks ago, it was down to 7.  Some of the lesser ones, newspapers, local pollsters, are putting it closer. Only EPIC has shown an increase off of a 3 point lead.

A 7-point lead doesn't make Michigan a "possibility" for Romney. And considering Michigan-only-pollsters' ludicrous bias, you can't count FMW's latest nonsense.

As I indicated, I did not include it. 

However, a drop of 7 points in 8 weeks on a slightly Democratic poll is significant.  Some of the lesser ones are showing it closer.  One of the superpacs just made an $800 K ad buy in MI.  On top of that, there does appear to be trending toward Romney in the region, with OH static, and Obama's only strong state being IL.  That isn't enough to start calling it a tossup or blue, but it certainly is a light shade of red.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 49%, u.

Disapprove 50%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 30%, +2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at  42%, -1.

[J. J.]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

Approve: 48%, -1


Disapprove: 46%, +1

[Tender Branson]

The new Pew poll looks likely to push Obama over the 50% approval barrier at RCP.

[mondale84]

The new Pew poll looks likely to push Obama over the 50% approval barrier at RCP.

It hasn't because they're hacks...

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

The new Pew poll looks likely to push Obama over the 50% approval barrier at RCP.

It hasn't because they're hacks...

Or maybe it's because Pew is at best a mediocre pollster.

[mondale84]

The new Pew poll looks likely to push Obama over the 50% approval barrier at RCP.

It hasn't because they're hacks...

Or maybe it's because Pew is at best a mediocre pollster.

That doesn't change the fact that RCP is a hack website...

[J. J.]

The new Pew poll looks likely to push Obama over the 50% approval barrier at RCP.

It hasn't because they're hacks...

Or maybe it's because Pew is at best a mediocre pollster.

That doesn't change the fact that RCP is a hack website...

RCP is fine, but a number of these polls are garbage.

[mondale84]

The new Pew poll looks likely to push Obama over the 50% approval barrier at RCP.

It hasn't because they're hacks...

Or maybe it's because Pew is at best a mediocre pollster.

That doesn't change the fact that RCP is a hack website...

RCP is fine, but a number of these polls are garbage.

I agree that a number of these polls are garbage including all Rassy, Gallup and ARG trolljobs, but RCP is a right-wing hack website and you should look at their article headlines to get a better idea of where they stand...

[HagridOfTheDeep]

^Much like looking at your thread titles...?