The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[J. J.]

Gallup

Approve 50% (+2)
Disapprove 44% (-1)

The American people had a bad dream about the 47% comment Monday night.

And, at the same time:

Obama:  49, -1

Romney: 45, +1

Someplace in there is a really bad sample.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 49%, u.

Disapprove 49%, -1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 30%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at  41%, u.

Head to head is at 49/47 Obama (u).

 

[Yank2133]

Gallup

Approval-54(+4)
Disapproval-42(-2)

Don't expect that to last after the debate.

[J. J.]

Gallup

Approval-54(+4)
Disapproval-42(-2)

Don't expect that to last after the debate.

Those numbers are not in it.

Probably a bad sample.

The weekly numbers dropped to 48% at the same time.

Presidential numbers are:

49% Obama, 45% Romney (u).  Those numbers do not include the debate numbers.

[Likely Voter]

54? When was the last time he was that high? 2009? It wont last.

[King]

Obama could have buried Romney last night.  What a disaster.

[Lief]

Yup. Obama could have won by 10% in the popular vote if he had finished off Romney last night. Instead we'll probably be seeing a slim Romney lead in the next few days.

[J. J.]

Gallup's daily number average for September 23-30 was 50.14%.  Their weekly tracking for the same period is 48% (and a decline of 1 point).  There is obviously some bad numbers in their someplace.

[J. J.]

One bit of good news is that the right direction/wrong track number on Rasmussen is 37/55.  37 is tied for the highest position in about 6 months.

[Senator Sbane]

I highly doubt just this debate will cause Romney to lead. But if this becomes a pattern, and the people think Obama has nothing new to offer them while Romney keeps playing to the middle, watch out.

[kingthlayer]

One bit of good news is that the right direction/wrong track number on Rasmussen is 37/55.  37 is tied for the highest position in about 6 months.

Yeah that is some great news!

[J. J.]

One bit of good news is that the right direction/wrong track number on Rasmussen is 37/55.  37 is tied for the highest position in about 6 months.

Yeah that is some great news!

Well, if you are being sarcastic, that is about as good as the news gets today.

[Torie]

I highly doubt just this debate will cause Romney to lead. But if this becomes a pattern, and the people think Obama has nothing new to offer them while Romney keeps playing to the middle, watch out.

The most effective thing Mittens said in my mind, with the voters who will decide the election, is that he worked for bipartisan consensus with Romneycare, and Obama didn't with Obamacare, and that approach can bear poison fruit. All major pieces of social legislation in the past have had important bipartisan support - all of them. And yes, Mittens is playing the middle hard now. It must be a relief for him that the primaries are over. That period was absolutely horrible.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

One bit of good news is that the right direction/wrong track number on Rasmussen is 37/55.  37 is tied for the highest position in about 6 months.

Yeah that is some great news!

Well, if you are being sarcastic, that is about as good as the news gets today.

Actually, I'd say Obama being at 54% on Gallup is pretty good news for him.

[Senator Sbane]

I highly doubt just this debate will cause Romney to lead. But if this becomes a pattern, and the people think Obama has nothing new to offer them while Romney keeps playing to the middle, watch out.

The most effective thing Mittens said in my mind, with the voters who will decide the election, is that he worked for bipartisan consensus with Romneycare, and Obama didn't with Obamacare, and that approach can bear poison fruit. All major pieces of social legislation in the past have had important bipartisan support - all of them. And yes, Mittens is playing the middle hard now. It must be a relief for him that the primaries are over. That period was absolutely horrible.

Of course Obama's response should be that no Republican wanted to play ball with him, but he wasn't able to make that argument at all during the debate. He has an even better case with the debt debacle of a couple years back (when Nancy was not calling the shots), and he failed there as well. Truman won by running against an obstructionist congress, Obama must do the same.

[Secretary Polnut]

I highly doubt just this debate will cause Romney to lead. But if this becomes a pattern, and the people think Obama has nothing new to offer them while Romney keeps playing to the middle, watch out.

The most effective thing Mittens said in my mind, with the voters who will decide the election, is that he worked for bipartisan consensus with Romneycare, and Obama didn't with Obamacare, and that approach can bear poison fruit. All major pieces of social legislation in the past have had important bipartisan support - all of them. And yes, Mittens is playing the middle hard now. It must be a relief for him that the primaries are over. That period was absolutely horrible.

I thought that entire discussion was awful... It's difficult to be bipartisan when the other side refuses to do anything other than what they want.

Kind of the same as in MA, Romney's point about working with democrats was silly, because he didn't have a choice. they could have overrun his veto, and this this was before the gop went into the psychiatric ward, and being seen as a 'concilliator' was going to be a plus. but in reality, he was bent over a barrell.

I'm startled he didn't attack congress, not even a little...

[Torie]

I highly doubt just this debate will cause Romney to lead. But if this becomes a pattern, and the people think Obama has nothing new to offer them while Romney keeps playing to the middle, watch out.

The most effective thing Mittens said in my mind, with the voters who will decide the election, is that he worked for bipartisan consensus with Romneycare, and Obama didn't with Obamacare, and that approach can bear poison fruit. All major pieces of social legislation in the past have had important bipartisan support - all of them. And yes, Mittens is playing the middle hard now. It must be a relief for him that the primaries are over. That period was absolutely horrible.

Of course Obama's response should be that no Republican wanted to play ball with him, but he wasn't able to make that argument at all during the debate. He has an even better case with the debt debacle of a couple years back (when Nancy was not calling the shots), and he failed there as well. Truman won by running against an obstructionist congress, Obama must do the same.

Well actually Obama didn't play much ball with the Pubs on Obamacare at all, walked out on Boehner because he could not even suck up using the chained CPI for SS payment adjustments, ignored Simpson Bowles, that had a bipartisan majority in support of something, and indeed does not talk much to anybody. Dems in Congress bitch all the time what a loner and unapproachable Obama is.  I suspect he holds most of the political class in contempt. That is my honest opinion.

Obama has his talents. Being a consensus builder, and finding the middle, is not one of them however. It is just not within him. Mittens should play this card hard from now until the election. His base will have to suck it up.

[Secretary Polnut]

I highly doubt just this debate will cause Romney to lead. But if this becomes a pattern, and the people think Obama has nothing new to offer them while Romney keeps playing to the middle, watch out.

The most effective thing Mittens said in my mind, with the voters who will decide the election, is that he worked for bipartisan consensus with Romneycare, and Obama didn't with Obamacare, and that approach can bear poison fruit. All major pieces of social legislation in the past have had important bipartisan support - all of them. And yes, Mittens is playing the middle hard now. It must be a relief for him that the primaries are over. That period was absolutely horrible.

Of course Obama's response should be that no Republican wanted to play ball with him, but he wasn't able to make that argument at all during the debate. He has an even better case with the debt debacle of a couple years back (when Nancy was not calling the shots), and he failed there as well. Truman won by running against an obstructionist congress, Obama must do the same.

Well actually Obama didn't play much ball with the Pubs on Obamacare at all, walked out on Boehner because he could not even suck up using the chained CPI for SS payment adjustments, ignored Simpson Bowles, that had a bipartisan majority in support of something, and indeed does not talk much to anybody. Dems in Congress bitch all the time what a loner and unapproachable Obama is.  I suspect he holds most of the political class in contempt. That is my honest opinion.

Obama has his talents. Being a consensus builder, and finding the middle, is not one of them however. It is just not within him. Mittens should play this card hard from now until the election. His base will have to suck it up.

Alright... i'm asking a serious question, since i respect you and unlike JJ you've haven't turned into a hack.

do you genuinely believe that this congress, especially with McConnell and the TP caucus.... that anything even close to a compromise could have been reached?

Every reasonable GOPer was terrified of being primaried...

[Torie]

I highly doubt just this debate will cause Romney to lead. But if this becomes a pattern, and the people think Obama has nothing new to offer them while Romney keeps playing to the middle, watch out.

The most effective thing Mittens said in my mind, with the voters who will decide the election, is that he worked for bipartisan consensus with Romneycare, and Obama didn't with Obamacare, and that approach can bear poison fruit. All major pieces of social legislation in the past have had important bipartisan support - all of them. And yes, Mittens is playing the middle hard now. It must be a relief for him that the primaries are over. That period was absolutely horrible.

I thought that entire discussion was awful... It's difficult to be bipartisan when the other side refuses to do anything other than what they want.

Kind of the same as in MA, Romney's point about working with democrats was silly, because he didn't have a choice. they could have overrun his veto, and this this was before the gop went into the psychiatric ward, and being seen as a 'concilliator' was going to be a plus. but in reality, he was bent over a barrell.

I'm startled he didn't attack congress, not even a little...

Well Obama chose to do nothing, rather than work out compromises with the Pub House when he "had no choice but to do so if he wanted to do anything at all." He never had serious negotiations with them about anything really. So the Pubs were unanimous against him, including all the moderates and centrists - all of them.  One simply could not do business with him. JMO.  

[Secretary Polnut]

That's not how I remembered things going... but eh...

[Torie]

I highly doubt just this debate will cause Romney to lead. But if this becomes a pattern, and the people think Obama has nothing new to offer them while Romney keeps playing to the middle, watch out.

The most effective thing Mittens said in my mind, with the voters who will decide the election, is that he worked for bipartisan consensus with Romneycare, and Obama didn't with Obamacare, and that approach can bear poison fruit. All major pieces of social legislation in the past have had important bipartisan support - all of them. And yes, Mittens is playing the middle hard now. It must be a relief for him that the primaries are over. That period was absolutely horrible.

Of course Obama's response should be that no Republican wanted to play ball with him, but he wasn't able to make that argument at all during the debate. He has an even better case with the debt debacle of a couple years back (when Nancy was not calling the shots), and he failed there as well. Truman won by running against an obstructionist congress, Obama must do the same.

Well actually Obama didn't play much ball with the Pubs on Obamacare at all, walked out on Boehner because he could not even suck up using the chained CPI for SS payment adjustments, ignored Simpson Bowles, that had a bipartisan majority in support of something, and indeed does not talk much to anybody. Dems in Congress bitch all the time what a loner and unapproachable Obama is.  I suspect he holds most of the political class in contempt. That is my honest opinion.

Obama has his talents. Being a consensus builder, and finding the middle, is not one of them however. It is just not within him. Mittens should play this card hard from now until the election. His base will have to suck it up.

Alright... i'm asking a serious question, since i respect you and unlike JJ you've haven't turned into a hack.

do you genuinely believe that this congress, especially with McConnell and the TP caucus.... that anything even close to a compromise could have been reached?

Every reasonable GOPer was terrified of being primaried...

I don't know if a deal could be cut, but yes, Obama could have made more of an effort, and I am quite confident he could have peeled off some Pubs with something that ended up effectively insuring everyone somehow for example to some degree - which obviously has to be done, along with moving Medicare more towards an HMO system. Heck, he could have peeled off me if I had been in Congress.

[Beet]

What about in the lame duck session? Obama got significant bipartisan bills through on the treaty with Russia, repealing DADT, and extending the Bush era tax cuts another two years. And although it's not a comprehensive debt deal, the sequester was a deal with a Congress infused with tea party freshmen. And he's avoided a government shutdown, which Bill Clinton didn't when he last had an opposing Congress. The idea that Obama doesn't engage with Democrats in Congress doesn't square with the fact that he basically let them write the piece of legislation with his name on it, Obamacare. He learned from the Clintons' secretive, top-down approach that froze out Congress and adapted accordingly. He also shifted his position on the mandate once it became clear that his original approach wasn't working. He's shown himself to be flexible and pragmatic.

[Senator Sbane]

I highly doubt just this debate will cause Romney to lead. But if this becomes a pattern, and the people think Obama has nothing new to offer them while Romney keeps playing to the middle, watch out.

The most effective thing Mittens said in my mind, with the voters who will decide the election, is that he worked for bipartisan consensus with Romneycare, and Obama didn't with Obamacare, and that approach can bear poison fruit. All major pieces of social legislation in the past have had important bipartisan support - all of them. And yes, Mittens is playing the middle hard now. It must be a relief for him that the primaries are over. That period was absolutely horrible.

Of course Obama's response should be that no Republican wanted to play ball with him, but he wasn't able to make that argument at all during the debate. He has an even better case with the debt debacle of a couple years back (when Nancy was not calling the shots), and he failed there as well. Truman won by running against an obstructionist congress, Obama must do the same.

Well actually Obama didn't play much ball with the Pubs on Obamacare at all, walked out on Boehner because he could not even suck up using the chained CPI for SS payment adjustments, ignored Simpson Bowles, that had a bipartisan majority in support of something, and indeed does not talk much to anybody. Dems in Congress bitch all the time what a loner and unapproachable Obama is.  I suspect he holds most of the political class in contempt. That is my honest opinion.

Obama has his talents. Being a consensus builder, and finding the middle, is not one of them however. It is just not within him. Mittens should play this card hard from now until the election. His base will have to suck it up.

Regarding Obamacare, it is just so similar to Republican plans that I don't understand why more Republicans didn't sign on to it. I don't think there was much reasoning to the opposition to it, which is why you saw the raving nonsense about "kill the bill" and all that. Of course I think the Wyden-Bennett bill would have been better, although much more politically difficult to get through, but you cannot criticize Obamacare as being too liberal or leftist. It just doesn't make sense. I guess the Democrats were more concerned about pleasing their own moderates than reaching out to the Republicans? It's all drama really, I don't see what Republicans would have wanted in reality that they didn't get with the bill, except credit of course. And that is worth way more than passing good bills in today's media driven political world.

[Beet]

Torie, you would never survive in an actual GOP primary in one of those conservative or swing districts. It's not that no Republicans could have been convinced to vote for health care... they were literally dragged kicking and screaming by their own base against the bill. Remember Arlen Specter and Kathleen Sebelius trying to hold a town hall and that woman saying "you have awakened the sleeping giant"? The vitriol was astonishing. No Republican would have voted for it, no matter what they personally thought of the bill, for that reason alone. Political suicide.

The kind of tranquil, moderate, consensus-building governance-- actually, I think, Obama actually prefers that. He would have been a much more popular President in times of prosperity where that kind of governance is possible. The primary emotions of 2009 were rage and fear. And it wasn't so much health care per se but everything-- the collapse of the economy the previous year playing out.

[Secretary Polnut]

So it would have been better for Obama to waste this whole term trying to schmooze Pubbies who wouldn't have supported it anyway... or try to get something to done to address the problem.

Can you name one GOP who would have been confident enough to support ANYTHING Obama did? This is the party that thinks Dick Lugar and Bob Bennett (and tried hard against Orin Hatch and John McCain) aren't conservative enough....

You can make the argument Obama didn't try hard enough... but I disagree strongly that the outcome would have been anything different than him having to go alone..