The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[Alexander Hamilton]

The disapproval is also stemming from liberals, who are seeing that all his foreign policy/national security stances that fervently supported him for have rapidly become George W. Bush all over again. And no way is Obama governing from the center. Obama is the least "central" president since FDR, or at least Johnson.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States?

54% Yes, 26% No

That's pretty embarassing considering the "Yes" is only a few points higher than the percentage that voted for him.

Actually not. Only the electorate of the Republican Party is embarrassing.

Not all of us are loons.

[Alexander Hamilton]

There needs to be more Florida polls conducted. I'm interested to see current approvals.

What do people think in your part of Florida?

[Alexander Hamilton]

There needs to be more Florida polls conducted. I'm interested to see current approvals.

What do people think in your part of Florida?

Well I think most people are against the healthcare reform stuff. As seen in the Tampa/Kathy Castor protest. Especially most seniors are worried.

Well they have good reason to be.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Democratic Hawk is not going to blame Obama or his policies for his low rating.

And why should I? I'm a pragmatic moderate, not some rightwing dogmatoid

You post an entire speech babbling about the evils of Reactionary Republican "wealthfare" attacking the GOP and nation en masse for their reactions to Obama's doing next to nothing since taking office and we are really supposed to believe you are a moderate? And do you really believe Obama stands for your "workfare" and not leftist welfare? You are delusional if that is the case.

Before you get caught up in semantics, I think it's fair enough just assume that Hawk is a moderate (or whichever set of buzzworded talking-pointed euphamism he chooses to use, "Christian Democrat" or pragmatic whateverthehell).

But to clarify, he's a Democratic partisan first and a moderate second.

No, Democratic Hawk is far from a moderate. You and I are moderates.

[Alexander Hamilton]

pbrower2 is not taken seriously.

[Alexander Hamilton]

It was nice to see your 2001 prediction of 2004, pbrower.  It was a fantastic reminder of how bad of an idea it is to predict elections so far in advance.  Why did you delete it?

Accident. I had repeated a post and deleted the wrong one.

Here it is again, hopefully improved, based upon reasonable assumptions a few days after 9/11 of the Presidential election of 2004:

Dubya (R) 488 EV
Levin   (D)   50 EV


Dubya wins 85% of the vote in Oklahoma and 92% in NE-02!  People are already asking whether Rick Santorum or George Allen will win in a landslide in the 2008 Presidential election, and whether the Democratic Party has any long-term viability. One would have to make an allowance that the Democratic candidate of 2004, probably someone with long and respected service to his country (let's say Senator Carl Levin, D-MI) might get the nomination and flip a state or two -- in his case Michigan and perhaps New York and/or New Jersey, but don't count on it).

Oh -- Carl Levin loses his Senate seat in 2006 in the last wave of conservative sweeps of liberals from office in 2006.

pbrower2 is not taken seriously.

[Alexander Hamilton]

All political life is flux. We must never forget that. Some things are of course impossible, or at least so unlikely that one has to go through incredible contortions to make them seem possible, as in "a Republican could win DC if the Democrat appears as a particiapant in a KKK rally" or "the Democrat will win Utah if his opponent calls Mormonism a 'demonic cult'".

Many people over-estimated Dubya's political abilities after 9/11 and his likelihood of getting genuine bipartisanship in meeting real dangers to America. I was one of them for a time.

And oyu are currently way overestimating Obama.


Your a hack admit it.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I just see too many political strengths -- superb orator, good political strategist, ability to appeal to voters that the other Party takes for granted, shrewd use of media...

Hitler had many of those qualities too, but he was still  unpopular. That stuff might help him in his first election campaign, but people will be voting on how he did as a President, not how well of a speaker he is.

Hitler was very popular in Germany.

[Alexander Hamilton]

If the election was today, I would predict this as the map...

.... lol

Explain. I basically went off polling and 2008 results.

New Mexico would go blue before Iowa or Wisconsin.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Change your avatar. It would be for the best. Just ask Rowanbrandon how free he feels now.

Lol RowanBrandon is a joke. He's not a real Republican

[Alexander Hamilton]

Hahaha, so you include the VA poll when it's positive but dismiss the NJ poll when it's negative. You sir are not just a moron, but a HACK.

For the third time, why are you advocating for the inclusion of a poll of likely 2009 voters?

Is the Virginia poll likely 2009 voters, too?  If not, why shouldn't it be inclusion?

I just want consistency. You either include both VA and NJ polls, or neither. You can't include the VA simply because it's positive and exclude the NJ because it's negative.

Pot calling the kettle black, hack. You are the blue avatar pbrower2

[Alexander Hamilton]

Neither of the polls should be used then, not both.

Exactly

[Alexander Hamilton]

Neither of the polls should be used then, not both.

Which is the point I've been trying to make. It's about consistency.

Oddly the effect would be to negate the two last polls involving Virginia, which means that the state would remain light-green as it was before the Rasmussen poll that showed a 49-50 split on approval ratings.

The New Jersey poll is of course inconsistent with what is shown in politically-similar states... like Connecticut; if anything it looks like an inversion of what one might expect.     

Then don't use the stupid Maine outlier either, you incompetent troll.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Texas(Rasmussen)

Approve 53%
Disapprove 56%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/texas/most_in_texas_give_public_health_agencies_positive_marks_on_swine_flu_response

109%?

[Alexander Hamilton]

SUSA’s Monthly numbers are out:

Alabama: 37/61
California: 62/33
Iowa: 46/48
Kansas: 39/57
Kentucky: 39/57
Minnesota: 55/40
Missouri: 44/54
New Mexico: 50/45
New York: 63/33
Oregon: 59/37
Virginia: 49/48
Washington: 53/42
Wisconsin: 47/47

http://www.surveyusa.com/50StateTracking.html

How is it that Obama has such higher approvals in Oregon than Washington?

WA is more liberal... therefore more disappointed with Obama's pandering and lying and flip-flopping and basically direction-less administration

Possibly

[Alexander Hamilton]

SUSA’s Monthly numbers are out:

Alabama: 37/61
California: 62/33
Iowa: 46/48
Kansas: 39/57
Kentucky: 39/57
Minnesota: 55/40
Missouri: 44/54
New Mexico: 50/45
New York: 63/33
Oregon: 59/37
Virginia: 49/48
Washington: 53/42
Wisconsin: 47/47

http://www.surveyusa.com/50StateTracking.html

How is it that Obama has such higher approvals in Oregon than Washington?

WA is more liberal... therefore more disappointed with Obama's pandering and lying and flip-flopping and basically direction-less administration

Possibly

pandering, lying, and flip-flopping... not nearly as much as his predecessor.

That's isn't true at all. Bush only really flip-flopped on foreign policy things, which could be justified by post-9/11 fear (still not a great excuse) and even so, I though Obama was going to bring the troops home? Yeah, I thought so. Obama is far worse of a liar and flip-flopper and panderer. He is so splineless that his party can control everything yet he can't get his own healthcare plan done. Bush managed to push through a worse healthcare plan with far less favorable numbers (Medicare D)

[Alexander Hamilton]

How is it that Obama has such higher approvals in Oregon than Washington?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

pandering, lying, and flip-flopping... not nearly as much as his predecessor.

That's isn't true at all. Bush only really flip-flopped on foreign policy things, which could be justified by post-9/11 fear (still not a great excuse) and even so, I though Obama was going to bring the troops home? Yeah, I thought so. Obama is far worse of a liar and flip-flopper and panderer. He is so splineless that his party can control everything yet he can't get his own healthcare plan done. Bush managed to push through a worse healthcare plan with far less favorable numbers (Medicare D)

Pandering -- to the money changers

Lying -- lies about non-existent WMDs to get us into a high-profit war in Iraq on behalf of American oil companies.

Flip-flopping? from the definitive free-market (or at least profits Above All Else) to the bailout of failed cronies in the banking industry. 

You idiotic trolling hack, Bush didn't campaign on that stuff.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Yeah, but they don't have a +37 net.

That's because they measure "likely" voters: Notice that in the 2008 election only 58% of all New Jersey adults went to the polls and voted for Obama with 57%. So what do we know about the other 42% that did not go to the polls ? They could be a really Obama-friendly but silent crowd and that's pushing up his numbers among adults.

Or it could just be more NYT BS.

[Alexander Hamilton]

It better not pass, I don't want an increase in my taxes.

So you're a rich?

It doesn't just raise taxes on the rich.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Approval and disapproval for the President can be extremely volatile. We are likely to see some more polls that corroborate or contradict this one.  Let's remember -- poor whites and poor blacks have much the same economic problems, and if any group of people has potential as pick-ups for Obama in 2012, it is poor whites. He can't do much good for poor blacks if he doesn't also do good for poor whites, too. If the "scariness" factor goes away and Obama achieves his promises, then the 2012 election should be an Obama landslide.

So how is making things worse for both poor blacks and poor whites going to affect Obama's re-election performance?

How is he making things worse? He promised to start undoing the damage of the previous Administration and he is making good on his promises. Unemployment is high, but such reflects damage done before he became President.   

Oh yes, "undoing the damage of the previous Administration" by expanding the policies of the previous administration.