The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

South Carolina, a toss-up State?  Seriously?  This is one of the few States in which we already knew the eventual outcome for 2012, even back in December 2008.  The only real question is whether Obama can duplicate his wonderful performance from 2008 in 2012 or not.

The problem with your assumptions pbrower, is that when it comes to South Carolina, we have a very small fraction of the electorate at present that is truly independent, especially with respect to the national parties. Unless there is a real stinker of a candidate, there is only about 15% of the vote in play, with the GOP having a 45-40 advantage.  Even with a real stinker, a lot of that core is likelier to flip to a third party than to the other major party if a choice is available.  That's why despite running against a total joke, DeMint only got 61% of the vote compared to 28% for Greene and 9% for Clements, the only other name on the ballot.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Truman is a counter example unlikely to ever be repeated.  Everyone was so sure Dewey that Dewey was mouthing platitudes instead of stump speeches for the last month or so, and there was no polling to tell him otherwise.

If Dewey had even run a marginal campaign at the end, he could have easily have gotten at least this:



Which would have given Dewey a narrow 267 EV win (266 were needed in 1948) tho Truman would have still won in the PV.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

http://www.winthrop.edu/winthroppoll/default.aspx?id=9804

According to a Winthrop University Poll taken November 27-December 4, 2011

In South Carolina:
Obama: Approve: 44.8% Disapprove: 47.8% (Net: -3.0%)
Haley: Approve: 34.6% Disapprove: 43.0% (Net: -8.4%)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, Gallup is the only for which we have 60 years of approval ratings.  It is useful, longer term, for comparisons (hence my citations of 1948).  Rasmussen didn't start until 1994.

Why should their results from this year be any more useful than the results of another pollster?  It's not as if Gallup is polling the same people this year that they did 60 years ago, or are using the same people to poll as they did then.  Organizations change, and there is no basis for saying that the Gallup numbers for this year are more comparable to the Gallup numbers of 60 years ago than the Rasmussen numbers of this year.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Nonsens, I am not saying that, you are. By ignoring the other polls that are much better for Obama.

No. Gallup is the only one where we can make a poll to poll comparison.  Scott Rasmussen wasn't polling when he was 12.

You only need take the numbers seriously.

J.J. you still have not given any creditable reason why a 1948 Gallup poll should be more comparable to a 2012 Gallup poll than to a 2012 Rasmussen poll.

It's like saying a 1948 Ford F-1 pickup truck has more in common with a 2012 Ford F-150 than a 2012 Toyota Tundra, when the only thing an F-1 and an F-150  can be shown to have in common is the name plate.

[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.