Gallup state numbers predict huge Obama loss

[Reaganfan]

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gallup-state-numbers-predict-huge-obama-loss/352881

Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.

Gallup adds:

    Overall, Obama averaged 44% job approval in his third year in office, down from 47% in his second year. His approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in most states, with Wyoming, Connecticut, and Maine showing a marginal increase, and Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, and Georgia showing declines of less than a full percentage point. The greatest declines were in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico

[Eraserhead]

Wow, Republicans must be glad that Obama will be running against himself instead of Mitt Romney and that the election will take place with him using his approval numbers from last year as opposed to his numbers from this one.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Reaganfan is on crack , big surprise. 

[Bacon King]

Oh wow, I really hope that the GOP doesn't nominate Generic Republican; it looks like he's beating Obama by a lot more than any of the other candidates.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Reaganfan is on crack , big surprise. 

Crack is so '80s, so no surprise indeed.

[NVGonzalez]

Reaganfan is on crack , big surprise. 

Crack is so '80s, so no surprise indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfNluQ888g4

[pbrower2a]

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gallup-state-numbers-predict-huge-obama-loss/352881

Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.

Gallup adds:

    Overall, Obama averaged 44% job approval in his third year in office, down from 47% in his second year. His approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in most states, with Wyoming, Connecticut, and Maine showing a marginal increase, and Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, and Georgia showing declines of less than a full percentage point. The greatest declines were in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico

Wrong, wrong, very wrong premise. Incumbent Governors and Senators show a strong tendency to win re-election despite having approval ratings at the start of the campaign season decidedly below 50%. That's not to say that an incumbent Governor or Senator can win re-election without establishing a spirited and competent campaign. A spirited and competent campaign is good on the average for adding 6% to 7% to the approval rating at the start of the campaign to get the final share of the vote in a two-person election.

http://observationalepidemiology.blogspot.com/2010/03/nate-silver-debunks-another-polling.html

Of course that is for a competent campaigner facing an average challenger without some breaking scandal or being linked to some economic, diplomatic, or military debacle. A competent and spirited campaign is almost never enough to offset an approval rating below 40%; most losing incumbents had a huge deficit in approval rating to begin with. Those with approval ratings in the mid-30s or lower generally don't run for re-election. This applies to both Parties and to wave years and incumbent-friendly years alike. Rick Santorum had no chance in 2006 and Blanche Lincoln had no chance in 2010.

Is it possible for an incumbent to start with an approval rating near 50%  and still lose? Sure -- Senator George Allen in 2006, who faced an unusually-strong opponent, who ran an inept campaign, who made an incredible gaffe (his "macaca moment" in which he smeared an ethnic group that most people think of positively, and whose staffers roughed up a heckler a week before the election)...  but such is a rarity of a circumstance. Most incumbents don't have everything going wrong, and with few exceptions (mostly those appointed to their offices -- and people appointed to the Senate or to State Governorships usually lose re-election bids if they try) they show why they were elected in the first place.   

Challengers get to carp at will at the incumbent while the incumbent governs or legislates. The incumbent as a rule must make decisions that will not please much more than half of the electorate. OK -- whacking Osama bin Laden does get high approval, but it obviously isn't everything. Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum could all attack the President for his affronts to conservative interest groups... but now they get to show what they would do.   

Fine, you say. But the Presidency is different. Sure. There are fewer data points from which to make a conclusion. But with only three exceptions the incumbent president had never been elected as a Governor, US Senator, or Vice-President. Those three were Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Gerald Ford. Dwight Eisenhower won re-election without having to do much campaigning because he was popular enough to not need to campaign. Administering D-Day looked like overwhelming evidence of competence; Eisenhower cleaved close to the middle of the road, steered clear of the McCarthy hysteria, and made few controversial decisions (the big ones involved enforcement of decisions of the Supreme Court against popular segregationist governors).  He campaigned hardly at all, started with an approval rating in the mid-fifties and won 57% of the vote.  Gerald Ford, who had never even run for any statewide office, demonstrated why almost all Presidents from strictly-civilian life have first been a Governor or Senator. Few Presidents running for re-election have ever operated so ineffective a campaign for re-election as did Gerald Ford. The other is Herbert Hoover, who had been a successful Cabinet Secretary but had never been elected to anything before 1928.

I can say this so far. President Obama is as adept a campaigner as anyone. He had a fine campaign apparatus in 2008 and his people can take it out of mothballs. The Obama campaign co-ordinated well with liberal interest groups that have not been disappointed. He has much legislative activity enacted, if only during the first two years -- and his campaign will be offer a way to enact popular legislation (vote the GOP b@stards out while voting for the re-election of President Obama). Time for an economic meltdown or a diplomatic/military is rapidly fading away. The closest thing to a scandal is his support for Solyndra for ideological reasons -- and Dubya could survive his closer personal connections to people enmeshed in the bigger scandal at Enron Corporation.  It is impossible to run to the Right of the President on foreign policy without showing dangerous belligerency, if not lunacy.

I concur that the undecided can break almost entirely against the President -- but only if his approval rating is around 60% in early November. Unlike the case for Governors or Senators, the Presidency has a ceiling of roughly 62% of the vote in practice (FDR 1936, LBJ 1964, Nixon 1972)  -- probably because if the President has an approval rating around 60% the "undecided" are almost all on the other side of the political spectrum. (If his approval rating is around 30% in November, then almost all of the decided will be on his side of the political spectrum, which is how things were for Hoover in 1932 or Carter in 1980). 

If the Presidential election were to be held today, then based upon extant polls for binary matchups, then President Obama  would have practically no chance of losing. Almost all polls show the President with a huge margin for victory (bigger than the statistical margin of error) in every state that either Gore or Kerry won in 2000 or 2004 except New Hampshire... and with a poll this week in Ohio giving the President an edge against everyone else outside the margin of error, the President would win.   

 

 

[Tender Branson]

Frankly, these numbers are beyond useless.

A poll that was conducted over a year ...

[Yank2133]

GOP supporters are getting desperate if you are using this data to try and "scare" Democrats.

[King]

Articles like this are dangerous. It gives party extremists false hope and they'll lash out when things don't go their way as this article clearly shows Obama and his cronies cheated, bought, or just flat out the election.

Not only are a lot of these Gallup polls months old, but a good portion of people who voice disapproval in most state crosstabs--Oregon for example--are liberals. Those people would never support opposition though they disapprove of Obama's more moderate views. 

[Vosem]

Few Presidents running for re-election have ever operated so ineffective a campaign for re-election as did Gerald Ford.

On the contrary, Ford ran one of the best campaigns of the 20th century; except for losing one debate, it was literally flawless. Carter started off with a lead of over 30 points in national polling, and looked like he would make Johnson's '64 victory small fry. But Ford recovered and in the end the election was decided by a few close states that barely want to Carter.

If the Presidential election were to be held today, then based upon extant polls for binary matchups, then President Obama  would have practically no chance of losing. Almost all polls show the President with a huge margin for victory (bigger than the statistical margin of error) in every state that either Gore or Kerry won in 2000 or 2004 except New Hampshire...

That's not true. Take a look at this Connecticut poll done by PPP (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_CT_0930925.pdf); while somewhat dated, it's the most recent one out there. Michigan polling has been all over the map, clear Obama victories, clear Romney victories, ties. Polling shows a very close race in Pennsylvania, with perhaps a very slight advantage to Obama. There's also been some conflicting polling in Wisconsin, generally showing a slight Obama lead over Romney -- but Perry led in Wisconsin at the height of his surge.

And, even though polls against 'generic candidates' are frequently decried, they should not be ignored. PPP polling has shown Obama with a very narrow lead over Generic Republican in Illinois (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CACOCTILNHPA_1109.pdf); again, somewhat dated, but the Democratic brand is not doing so well in Illinois at the present. PPP polling in Pennsylvania (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CACOCTILNHPA_1109.pdf) seems to show a double-digit lead for Generic Republican.

So, this is not true

[Stranger in a strange land]

Oh wow, I really hope that the GOP doesn't nominate Generic Republican; it looks like he's beating Obama by a lot more than any of the other candidates.

You said it man, Obama really ought to worry about that Generic Republican guy.

[pbrower2a]

Posted elsewhere:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_OH_02012.pdf

Ohio is about R+2 in most Presidential elections. I don't know whether this will stick. In general add about 6% to the approval rating for an incumbent seeking re-election at the start of campaign season  and you get a fair estimate of the results in the next election.  At this point I would predict that President Obama is going to have a win somewhere between that of Clinton in 1996 and Eisenhower in 1956.

It is a bad idea for any Republican to carp about the auto bailout if he wants to win Ohio. That is one sure way to lose Ohio. Rick Santorum may have done less of that than the other three. 

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%


Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.


Obama vs. Gingrich:

Obama vs. Ron Paul

 
Obama vs. Romney

Obama vs. Santorum

[DrScholl]

Grasping at straws....

[TheGlobalizer]

State of the race today: Everyone hates all of the candidates.

No shock there.

[adrac]

I would like to see a map like this where the result are produced from Romney's approval ratings, or at least one produced by comparing he and Obama's.
That would at least have the potential to be telling.

[pbrower2a]

Few Presidents running for re-election have ever operated so ineffective a campaign for re-election as did Gerald Ford.

On the contrary, Ford ran one of the best campaigns of the 20th century; except for losing one debate, it was literally flawless. Carter started off with a lead of over 30 points in national polling, and looked like he would make Johnson's '64 victory small fry. But Ford recovered and in the end the election was decided by a few close states that barely want to Carter.

But he still lost because his campaign staff allocated campaign resources ineffectively. He should have won Ohio -- and didn't. It's Carter who was a weak campaigner, relying largely upon a coalition of black and poor white voters in the South while posing as a 'good ol' boy'. Ford was unable to consolidate support for himself within the GOP  due to a primary challenge from Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan was the master campaigner. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not true. Take a look at this Connecticut poll done by PPP (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_CT_0930925.pdf); while somewhat dated, it's the most recent one out there. Michigan polling has been all over the map, clear Obama victories, clear Romney victories, ties. Polling shows a very close race in Pennsylvania, with perhaps a very slight advantage to Obama. There's also been some conflicting polling in Wisconsin, generally showing a slight Obama lead over Romney -- but Perry led in Wisconsin at the height of his surge.[/quote]

I anticipated an Obama surge once he started campaigning. It may be that the Republican candidates for president have been an unusually weak lot. On the other hand, maybe President Obama is a more adept President than many of us want to believe or are ready to believe. It could also be that as Republican candidates sell out to right-wing special interests they become more objectionable while the President moves little in his positions. But at that, President Obama has always shown himself a masterful campaigner, and his campaign apparatus that served him so well in 2008 can come out of mothballs at any time. 

President Obama has done much that reeks of the certainty of re-election. It's hard to go to his right on foreign policy without seeming crazy or reckless. Face it: Bill Clinton wisely went silent on the foreign policy of George H W Bush and accepted it as his to continue. That was a good idea. The economy is improving without a speculative boom that could easily burst.     

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Generic Republican" isn't running. Unless the Republicans are able to come up with one in the aftermath of a brokered convention, "Mr. Generic Republican" is going to stay in hibernation until January 2013 or later.  The closest thing to a "Generic Republican" is Ronald Reagan, who had no particular strengths of region and no weaknesses of region. 

Some conservatives think that the American public will never vote for a President "too radical" to merit re-election, but I remember liberals who expected some Generic Democrat (Walter Mondale?) to defeat "that horrible President Ronnie Ray-Gun". We all know how that turned out.

[Politico]

At this point, it appears Obama will either lose big 1992-style, or win a close race 2004-style. It appears he will share the same fate as one of the George Bushes.

Obviously much can change in nine months. He could stage a 1996-style comeback, or have an epic fail 1980-style, or end up somewhere in-between.

[Devils30]

Looking at someone's batting average as the only key statistic in determining a player's value is the same thing as what this poster does regarding gallup's spread across the entire year approvals to determine re-election odds.

[Хahar 🤔]

At this point, it appears Obama will either lose big 1992-style, or win a close race 2004-style. It appears he will share the same fate as one of the George Bushes.

Obviously much can change in nine months. He could stage a 1996-style comeback, or have an epic fail 1980-style, or end up somewhere in-between.

One suspects the final map will look broadly similar to 1996.

[King]

At this point, it appears Obama will either lose big 1992-style, or win a close race 2004-style. It appears he will share the same fate as one of the George Bushes.

Obviously much can change in nine months. He could stage a 1996-style comeback, or have an epic fail 1980-style, or end up somewhere in-between.

Politico, you make the point that you're a registered Democrat who doesn't believe Obama should be rewarded for a mediocre first term.  If he does a great job over the next 9 months and we have, say, record job and GDP growth for a 9 month period, does that mean you will vote for him over Romney?

[Politico]

At this point, it appears Obama will either lose big 1992-style, or win a close race 2004-style. It appears he will share the same fate as one of the George Bushes.

Obviously much can change in nine months. He could stage a 1996-style comeback, or have an epic fail 1980-style, or end up somewhere in-between.

Politico, you make the point that you're a registered Democrat who doesn't believe Obama should be rewarded for a mediocre first term.  If he does a great job over the next 9 months and we have, say, record job and GDP growth for a 9 month period, does that mean you will vote for him over Romney?

Of course not. There's only nine months left. He has the historical record of being the first president in history to run trillion dollar deficits each year of his administration. Despite that massive amount of stimulus, which was obviously just not spent correctly (if I had to guess, most of it was essentially gobbled up by greedy public unions in some shape or form), this miraculous economic comeback you think is going to happen over the next nine months is just not going to happen. Not a single economist on the planet is forecasting such a thing.

There is no "hope and change" this time. There is no erratic, old, unattractive John McCain, no financial crisis to blame on Bush/Republicans, and no Sarah Palin to laugh at. And the vast majority of Americans are not better off than they were four years ago. Obama is really only left with one option: All-out scorched-earth like Bush in 2004 except even worse. It's probably not going to work, though, especially if Obama doubles down on the John Edwards/Ted Kennedy populist rhetoric.

[Adam Griffin]

Obama vs. Romney (If the election were held today)

Assuming:

100% (Total Vote)
- 1.5% (Third Party)
= 98.5%

Obama currently has a national advantage of 1.9 points over Romney (47.4 - 45.5)

Let's blindly extrapolate that to the final result, which would be:

Obama: 49.25 (+0.9) = 50.15% PV
Romney: 49.25 (-1.0) = 48.25% PV

I then compared approval ratings for Obama (with 44.4 being the national average) and took into account Dem/Rep advantage over the past three elections. This was the result:

Obama 298 EV (50.15% PV)
Romney 222 EV (48.25% PV)
Undecided 18 EV

If Romney could take Ohio and flip Florida from this scenario, then we see a 269-269 result.

[pbrower2a]

Here is what is decided so far:

Here's what I see with the stronger of Romney or Santorum:

PPP shows Ohio a likely Obama win outside of the margin of error for now. So far it seems that President Obama is behind by the same huge margins in the States that he lost, and he is winning by slightly-lesser margins than those, on the whole, in the States that he is winning.

[NVGonzalez]

Here is what is decided so far:

Here's what I see with the stronger of Romney or Santorum:

PPP shows Ohio a likely Obama win outside of the margin of error for now. So far it seems that President Obama is behind by the same huge margins in the States that he lost, and he is winning by slightly-lesser margins than those, on the whole, in the States that he is winning.

I must say I am a little surprised that you think Indiana and Missouri are more likely to go Obama than Arizona.