The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[memphis]

Tennessee (MTSU poll):

53% Approve
27% Disapprove

RACIST JOKES: “Nearly one in six Tennesseans has told a joke about Barack Obama’s race, and three-fourths say they’ve heard or read at least one, even though only 15 percent of Tennesseans say they would find such a joke funny.”

http://www.mtsusurveygroup.org/mtpoll/s2009/MTSU%20Poll%20National%20Report_final.pdf

Just for the heck of it (and I know I'm going to get lambasted for it) this Tennesseean will tell the racist joke he heard about Obama:

Why is Obama afraid to go to sleep?


Because the last N***a who had a dream got shot.

[memphis]

He's been doing better on gallup as well. Up to 53% now after being consistently below 50 for a while.

[memphis]

He's been doing better on gallup as well. Up to 53% now after being consistently below 50 for a while.

Gallup has some problems, including some fairly wide swings.  Rasmussen is has been uber stable.

It has swung very little. It was in the high forties for a couple of weeks and has now been in the low fifties for about a week.

[memphis]

The notion that approval numbers will equal election performance (with the sort of accuracy people around hereproject) is bogus. Obama got 53% of the vote and started off with approval in the high 60s. They are completely different metrics.

[memphis]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47% u

Disapprove 52% u

"Strongly Approve" is at 31%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 41%, -1.

All the polls point to a convergence in the "strongly" numbers.  The reports of a wildly enthused GOP base and a depressed Democratic one may have been grossly exaggerated.  All indications are that the midterm elections this year will be highly competitive.  It is critical that the GOP not continue to lose seats.  Such would sound the death knell for that party.  

 Not necessarily. The GOP continued to lose seats in 1934, 2 years after the dems dominated them. They were always there, but were just in a position of dormancy for some years and then gained ground in the late 1940's and 1950's. But I think you're right- the election will be very close. It will not be a Republican blowout. The Obama coalition is getting fired up too.

The Republican Party may very well to continue to exist ... but to be electorally successful, its policies must change significantly.  If it continues to stubbornly cling to the ideals of the past, then it shall go the way of the mastodon.

To appreciate the dire nature the party is in, one must examine its potential 2012 candidates.  Sarah Palin?  A seditious rube, whose qualifications for the Presidency are non-existent.  Mitt Romney?  A Wall Street insider - and he is considered to be their best candidate.  Mike Huckabee?  Too regional, too polarizing, too rural.  Mitch Daniels?  One of Dubya's minions.  George H.W. Bush?  He couldn't afford a credible Second Act.  Tabasco sauce?  Flavorful - but burns the throat.

The last poll, done by CNN, between Obama and Romney yields the following: Obama with 53% and Romney with 45%.  Add 6% to Obama's numbers, and you will get an accurate picture of the 2012 election.  Such is a landslide on the scale of Eisenhower's in 1956.  But I see his political skills more along the lines of Ronald Reagan.  Obama plays to win, and his campaign apparatus, which has been in mothballs, will come out.  When he is out of the White House and can finally campaign on his legislative successes, we will see his approvals - and his party's numbers - rise.

The 2010 Senate races ought to yield many surprises.  South Carolina?  Jim DeMint's approvals are sub-par.  Obama's, on the other hand, are surprisingly good for such a rock-ribbed conservative state.  The exploits of Governor Sanford may have put the Palmetto State into a Republican fatigue.  Georgia?  Only time will tell.  

 As a Georgia resident I can tell you that the races will be very competitive this year. Sonny's party is unpopular now due to their massive budget cuts on things like education, and the leading dem challenger, ex governor Roy Barnes, who paved the way for the first Repub governor since reconstruction, is actually competitive or leading against all Republican candidates. I think Johnny Isakson will get a run for his money, but will come out on top. There are not many strong dem challengers for his senate seat. Georgia is now too big and too diverse to be a one party state.

FYI: You've been punk'd.

[memphis]

Only rank amateurs would discuss the 2012 election using current "approval" data without employing the "add six (or sometimes four in the case of Ohio)" rule. When you do, you'll see that we're in the midst of an unstoppable Obama landslide barring the appearance of the "next Reagan."

Only a complete fool thinks approval data two years out means anything. Reagan is far from the only example proving this.

[memphis]

Hawai'i is just absurd a bunch of Asians rooting for the home team.

[memphis]

Hawai'i is just absurd a bunch of Asians rooting for the home team.

Obama's not Asian.

He was born in Hawaii and is the current President. I don't think Obama's race really plays into it, but Asians have more "loyalty" in their culture than is common in whitebread America.

[memphis]

OK, can someone explain to me what are the reasons behind Obama's spectacular rise?.

Sympathy bump after the Giffords shooting. OMGZ, I was upset and he gave a good speech!!11 I'm glad Obama's numbers are up, but it's just so damn stupid. Tragedies are goldmines for politicians.

[memphis]

Gallup has a 2010 approval number for each state. Obviously not current, but still interesting. MS seems strangely high and NH seems strangely low, but maybe there is some MoE.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146294/Hawaii-Approving-Obama-States-Decline.aspx

[memphis]

He picked up one point in the first day of Gallup's three day rolling average. If there were a substantial boost to be had (like the one any GOP prez would get) it would knock the average up by more than one point. Obama may top out at 55ish. Pretty ridiculous considering what a monumental acheivement this is, even if it could have been done years ago if not for a financially crippling war of choice in Iraq. Like I said in a previous post, haters will continue to hate.

[memphis]

I'd like to thank the resident Forum haters for proving me right. If going in and killing bin Laden (in a nuclear Pakistan) isn't enough to prove you have the balls to be commander in chief, I don't know what is. Being a "strong and decisive leader" shouldn't be about dressing up like a cowboy and fudging a John Wayne accent.

[memphis]

A bump is coming. Get ready for Happy New Year. War is over.

[memphis]

But with Gallup - nothing is consistent

There is basically a point on Gallup where an incumbent president's numbers cannot recover.  It is about 40% or lower in the first year, on the weekly numbers.  Obama is not there.

Clinton was below 40% in June of '93.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx
The first year doesn't mean much. That's why it's the time for bold action. The Presidency is a ticking clock and approval gets more important every minute.

[memphis]

But with Gallup - nothing is consistent

There is basically a point on Gallup where an incumbent president's numbers cannot recover.  It is about 40% or lower in the first year, on the weekly numbers.  Obama is not there.

Clinton was below 40% in June of '93.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx
The first year doesn't mean much. That's why it's the time for bold action. The Presidency is a ticking clock and approval gets more important every minute.

June of 1993 was not December of 1995.  Reagan was actually in the 30's in late 1982 early 1983.  He was around 50% at this point.

You said first year. Did you mean last year?

[memphis]

But with Gallup - nothing is consistent

There is basically a point on Gallup where an incumbent president's numbers cannot recover.  It is about 40% or lower in the first year, on the weekly numbers.  Obama is not there.

Clinton was below 40% in June of '93.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx
The first year doesn't mean much. That's why it's the time for bold action. The Presidency is a ticking clock and approval gets more important every minute.

June of 1993 was not December of 1995.  Reagan was actually in the 30's in late 1982 early 1983.  He was around 50% at this point.

You said first year. Did you mean last year?

Yes, I look at the last 18 months and the last 12 months.

In that case, the counter example is Truman. Below 40% in the 1948, but he still won re-election despite third party runs by both his liberal flank and the Dixiecrat wing of the party.

[memphis]

Presidential polling has been around for such a short time, and the sample size of Presidential elections is so small that drawing these definitive conclusions from the data is a waste of time.

Right now, my conclusion is that, with these numbers, it is possible for Obama to survive.

Given the polling and the likely potential candidate, it is not just possible, it is extremely likely that Obama will be re-elected.

[memphis]

Because Gallup uses a rolling sample, the convention boom hasn't even fully kicked in yet. This could be huge.

[memphis]

Something is seriously wrong with the American public when a pep rally gives a bigger boost than capturing Osama bin Laden. That said, I'll take it.