The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[Lief]

The jobs act is also very popular, and the GOP's continued obstruction of it is a clear contrast between the two parties.

Note that the Dems have also opened up a lead over the GOP on the generic ballot.

[pbrower2a]

PPP isn't charitable to the President in its most recent approval rating:

National Survey Results

Q1 Do you approve or disapprove of President
Barack Obama’s job performance?
Approve .......................................................... 45%
Disapprove...................................................... 51%
Not sure .......................................................... 4%

...but he can apparently win against this:

Q7 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion
of Mitt Romney?
Favorable........................................................ 36%
Unfavorable .................................................... 50%

or others even less ready for prime time:

Q8 If the candidates for President next year were
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican
Michele Bachmann, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama................................................ 50%
Michele Bachmann ......................................... 39%
Undecided....................................................... 11%

Q9 If the candidates for President next year were
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican
Herman Cain, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama................................................ 48%
Herman Cain................................................... 41%
Undecided....................................................... 11%

Q10 If the candidates for President next year were
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican
Newt Gingrich, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama................................................ 49%
Newt Gingrich ................................................. 43%
Undecided....................................................... 8%

Q11 If the candidates for President next year were
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Ron
Paul, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama................................................ 47%
Ron Paul ......................................................... 41%
Undecided....................................................... 13%
Not sure .......................................................... 14%

Q12 If the candidates for President next year were
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Rick
Perry, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama................................................ 49%
Rick Perry ....................................................... 39%
Undecided....................................................... 11%

Q13 If the candidates for President next year were
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt
Romney, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama................................................ 46%
Mitt Romney.................................................... 43%
Undecided....................................................... 11%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_1115513.pdf

With such high disapproval for the President and low valuation of the competence of challengers, I can expect that a large number of  potential voters either

(1) will not vote for any nominee
(2) will make their decisions based on something random, like a coin toss
(3) will vote for a third-party candidate
(4) will vote based upon their partisan affiliation

...all of which suggest a wash.

 

[Tender Branson]

Wisconsin (St. Norbert College – Wisconsin Public Radio):

53% Approve
43% Disapprove

Gov. Walker

38% Approve
58% Disapprove

http://wpr.org/announce/survey1111/2011f-survey-1.pdf

[BigSkyBob]

Rasmussen [11/16/11]:

Strong Approval:     23%
Strong Disapproval: 42%

-19%


Overall approval:

Approve:      47%
Disapprove: 53%

[The Vorlon]

In looking the the day to day numbers, it's easy to think you see trends that are not really there.

If you do an apples to apples comparison (ie track the changes within the same poll) there seems to be a whole lot less noise...


Essentially, versus a month ago, Obama's average disapproval is virtually unchanged, and his approval is up, on average, about 1%.

These changes are so small that "statistical noise" is my first guess. followed by "perhaps a very modest rise" in second place.....

[Ben Romney]

Michigan: President Tied With Generic Republican

As President Obama seeks re-election, a couple of traditionally Democratic states may be more competitive than usual.

In 2008, the president won Michigan’s Electoral College votes by sixteen percentage points but most Michigan voters now disapprove of the way he’s handled his tenure in the White House. Just 47% of Likely Voters in the state approve of the way that the president is performing his job, while 52% disapprove, according to new Rasmussen Reports polling data.

[Secretary Polnut]

Michigan: President Tied With Generic Republican

As President Obama seeks re-election, a couple of traditionally Democratic states may be more competitive than usual.

In 2008, the president won Michigan’s Electoral College votes by sixteen percentage points but most Michigan voters now disapprove of the way he’s handled his tenure in the White House. Just 47% of Likely Voters in the state approve of the way that the president is performing his job, while 52% disapprove, according to new Rasmussen Reports polling data.

You really need to get a grip...

[pbrower2a]

Michigan: President Tied With Generic Republican

As President Obama seeks re-election, a couple of traditionally Democratic states may be more competitive than usual.

In 2008, the president won Michigan’s Electoral College votes by sixteen percentage points but most Michigan voters now disapprove of the way he’s handled his tenure in the White House. Just 47% of Likely Voters in the state approve of the way that the president is performing his job, while 52% disapprove, according to new Rasmussen Reports polling data.

"Generic Republican" will go into hibernation as winter approaches its end and won't re-emerge until after the 2012 election is over. In Michigan "Generic Republican" means former Governor William Milliken or the late George Romney -- not James DeMint or Michele Bachmann.

Michigan will be decided, in any event, on voter turnout. The Democrats are going to try to get as many union members, Hispanics, and African-Americans   out to vote, and if they are successful the Democrats are going to make Michigan in 2012 look politically much like Michigan in 2008.   Michigan is politically much like either Minnesota or Wisconsin except with far more blacks -- or basically with Detroit instead of the Twin Cities or Milwaukee. 

[BigSkyBob]

Rasmussen [11/17/11]:

Strong Approval:      20%
Strong Disapproval:  44%


Overall Approval:      44%
Overall Disapproval:  56%

Strong disapproval approaching danger zone again.

[Secretary Polnut]

...or a bad sample.

[The Vorlon]

...or a bad sample.

The day Obama hit +1 in Rasmussen the sample jumped up a net 5% in one day, and three days later it drops 6% as that sample rolls off....

The "strong approve" dropping 5% looks like a bad sample on the low side...

Rasmussen's use of "likely voters" about a year out adds artificial volatility to things because "likely voters" a year out bounce around far more that they do close into an election....

There is no perfect methodology, they all have warts, this is just the set of warts Rasmussen has chosen...

[pbrower2a]

...or a bad sample.

The day Obama hit +1 in Rasmussen the sample jumped up a net 5% in one day, and three days later it drops 6% as that sample rolls off....

The "strong approve" dropping 5% looks like a bad sample on the low side...

Rasmussen's use of "likely voters" about a year out adds artificial volatility to things because "likely voters" a year out bounce around far more that they do close into an election....

There is no perfect methodology, they all have warts, this is just the set of warts Rasmussen has chosen...

Nobody can predict who the 'likely voters' are.  Some of the 'likely voters' will die or go senile and not vote.  Some who newly register to vote may be excited about casting their first vote as if a rite of passage. The latter are about as likely voters as I can imagine except for those actively involved in politics.

In all fairness to Rasmussen, its "likely voters" ends up looking like the electorate in a midterm or off-year election but goes to "real voters" in a Presidential year.   

[BigSkyBob]

...or a bad sample.

The day Obama hit +1 in Rasmussen the sample jumped up a net 5% in one day, and three days later it drops 6% as that sample rolls off....

The "strong approve" dropping 5% looks like a bad sample on the low side...

Rasmussen's use of "likely voters" about a year out adds artificial volatility to things because "likely voters" a year out bounce around far more that they do close into an election....

There is no perfect methodology, they all have warts, this is just the set of warts Rasmussen has chosen...

Nobody can predict who the 'likely voters' are. 

Perhaps Muon2 can enlighten you on how statistics work. "Voters" can't be predicted, but "likely voters" can. Sure, some voters that are not "likely voters" will in fact vote in the next election, and voters whom are "likely" to vote may not, but, the underlying statistical models underpinning the filter can be mathematically and empirically sound.

[MilesC56]

Rasmussen [11/17/11]:

Strong Approval:      20%
Strong Disapproval:  44%


Overall Approval:      44%
Overall Disapproval:  56%

Strong disapproval approaching danger zone again.

BS Bob clinging to Rasmussen numbers...what a surprise!

[The Vorlon]

Nobody can predict who the 'likely voters' are.  

Perhaps Muon2 can enlighten you on how statistics work. "Voters" can't be predicted, but "likely voters" can. Sure, some voters that are not "likely voters" will in fact vote in the next election, and voters whom are "likely" to vote may not, but, the underlying statistical models underpinning the filter can be mathematically and empirically sound.

There is no doubt that a "likely voter" screen is a better way to poll when you get quite close to an actual election, but one year out it's a bit vague as to how useful that screening is.

This far out, I actually like what Marist/McClatchy and Fox (Opinion Dynamics) do which is run a poll of registered voters, and then NOT slam the undecided hard for a reply.

By limiting the pool to RVs you eliminate the folks who are really unlikley to vote, and by not slamming the undecided, you get the opinion of those who are at least marginally engaged in the process enough to have an a actual opinion.

McClatchy says 43/50 => -7, which is pretty much identical to Fox's 42/48 => -6

The Gold Standard poll (HART/McINTURFF for NBC/WSJ) says 44/51 => -7 which I think is pretty close to reality.

Obama is (IMHO) is in that grey area of polling where is is clearly vulnerable, but also not dead in the water. - Obama's polling looks a lot like Bush II in the summer of 2004 (Obama is maybe a few points weaker) - weak, with a very passionate and intense core of opposition, but also a base that is "hanging in there" and likely facing a challenger in the General election that is less than optimal....

Assuming the Obama folks can bury any ethics scandals, and assuming the GOP gets a flawed candidate, Obama can still will.  It's going to be very close.

[Senator Sbane]

If nothing out of the ordinary happens with the economy, I have a feeling Obama wins a close one. Though if Romney is the nominee, he would have a good chance of winning, but again it will be close. If Europe implodes then who knows what happens but I doubt Obama can recover from that. If the economy suddenly starts creating on average 200-300k jobs per month then Obama wins easily. If the economy creates just enough jobs for the unemployment rate to remain steady or fall very slowly, it's going to be a close one. This is the state the economy has been in for more than a year now.

[pbrower2a]

Nobody can predict who the 'likely voters' are.  

Perhaps Muon2 can enlighten you on how statistics work. "Voters" can't be predicted, but "likely voters" can. Sure, some voters that are not "likely voters" will in fact vote in the next election, and voters whom are "likely" to vote may not, but, the underlying statistical models underpinning the filter can be mathematically and empirically sound.

There is no doubt that a "likely voter" screen is a better way to poll when you get quite close to an actual election, but one year out it's a bit vague as to how useful that screening is.

This far out, I actually like what Marist/McClatchy and Fox (Opinion Dynamics) do which is run a poll of registered voters, and then NOT slam the undecided hard for a reply.

By limiting the pool to RVs you eliminate the folks who are really unlikley to vote, and by not slamming the undecided, you get the opinion of those who are at least marginally engaged in the process enough to have an a actual opinion.

McClatchy says 43/50 => -7, which is pretty much identical to Fox's 42/48 => -6

The Gold Standard poll (HART/McINTURFF for NBC/WSJ) says 44/51 => -7 which I think is pretty close to reality.

Obama is (IMHO) is in that grey area of polling where is is clearly vulnerable, but also not dead in the water. - Obama's polling looks a lot like Bush II in the summer of 2004 (Obama is maybe a few points weaker) - weak, with a very passionate and intense core of opposition, but also a base that is "hanging in there" and likely facing a challenger in the General election that is less than optimal....

Assuming the Obama folks can bury any ethics scandals, and assuming the GOP gets a flawed candidate, Obama can still will.  It's going to be very close.

President Obama is indeed cooked if...

(1) The Republicans find a really-strong, moderate opponent. A RINO could beat him... or a conservative capable of allaying concerns about whether the GOP agenda would be nothing more than All for the Few. 

(2) He has a significant and discrediting scandal that entails personal gain for raiding the public assets. If Dubya could survive Enron, then the President can survive Solyndra, the latter more a bad judgment on a business model than cronyism.

(3) He assumes that he will be re-elected so he doesn't need to campaign.

(4) The US economy goes very bad very fast.

1. The Republicans aren't running any RINO, and with the politicians that they now have they are not making significant inroads onto the "Blue Firewall" except perhaps New Hampshire -- if Mitt Romney can convince the Granite State that he is one of them.  He is up by nearly 10 points -- which is not surprising when he is much of the news in a state rarely known as a source for news.  If anything the President is consolidating a hold in Ohio, a state that the Republicans absolutely dare not lose.  This President saved the auto industry, or at least two of the Big Three.

2. There may be no scandal to cover up. If Dubya could survive Enron, this President can survive Solyndra.

3. This is a question of personality. Will he do any active campaigning? He seems to enjoy it. He built one of the finest campaign apparatuses ever in 2008 and he can get that back in operation very quickly. He has incentives because the Republican hold on the House will be shaky and the Democratic hold on the Senate looks shaky. This President anticipates trouble well and deals with it without delay.

4. Every month that passes without such happening makes such much less likely.

Americans are getting more fussy about politics altogether, which is a good thing. When it comes to voting, Americans end up grading on a curve. If the President's approval rating is 48% but the opponent has a favorability rating around 42%, then guess who wins! Should Americans be getting more fussy about politics? Without question. We recently had a horrible President, and the House of Representatives is achieving nothing.

President Obama could win the electoral vote despite being second in the popular vote.   

[BigSkyBob]

Nobody can predict who the 'likely voters' are.  

Perhaps Muon2 can enlighten you on how statistics work. "Voters" can't be predicted, but "likely voters" can. Sure, some voters that are not "likely voters" will in fact vote in the next election, and voters whom are "likely" to vote may not, but, the underlying statistical models underpinning the filter can be mathematically and empirically sound.

There is no doubt that a "likely voter" screen is a better way to poll when you get quite close to an actual election, but one year out it's a bit vague as to how useful that screening is.

This far out, I actually like what Marist/McClatchy and Fox (Opinion Dynamics) do which is run a poll of registered voters, and then NOT slam the undecided hard for a reply.

By limiting the pool to RVs you eliminate the folks who are really unlikley to vote, and by not slamming the undecided, you get the opinion of those who are at least marginally engaged in the process enough to have an a actual opinion.

McClatchy says 43/50 => -7, which is pretty much identical to Fox's 42/48 => -6

The Gold Standard poll (HART/McINTURFF for NBC/WSJ) says 44/51 => -7 which I think is pretty close to reality.

Obama is (IMHO) is in that grey area of polling where is is clearly vulnerable, but also not dead in the water. - Obama's polling looks a lot like Bush II in the summer of 2004 (Obama is maybe a few points weaker) - weak, with a very passionate and intense core of opposition, but also a base that is "hanging in there" and likely facing a challenger in the General election that is less than optimal....

Assuming the Obama folks can bury any ethics scandals, and assuming the GOP gets a flawed candidate, Obama can still will.  It's going to be very close.

President Obama is indeed cooked if...

(1) The Republicans find a really-strong, moderate opponent. A RINO could beat him... or a conservative capable of allaying concerns about whether the GOP agenda would be nothing more than All for the Few. 

(2) He has a significant and discrediting scandal that entails personal gain for raiding the public assets. If Dubya could survive Enron, then the President can survive Solyndra, the latter more a bad judgment on a business model than cronyism.

(3) He assumes that he will be re-elected so he doesn't need to campaign.

(4) The US economy goes very bad very fast.

1. The Republicans aren't running any RINO, and with the politicians that they now have they are not making significant inroads onto the "Blue Firewall" except perhaps New Hampshire -- if Mitt Romney can convince the Granite State that he is one of them.  He is up by nearly 10 points -- which is not surprising when he is much of the news in a state rarely known as a source for news.  If anything the President is consolidating a hold in Ohio, a state that the Republicans absolutely dare not lose.  This President saved the auto industry, or at least two of the Big Three.

2. There may be no scandal to cover up. If Dubya could survive Enron, this President can survive Solyndra.

3. This is a question of personality. Will he do any active campaigning? He seems to enjoy it. He built one of the finest campaign apparatuses ever in 2008 and he can get that back in operation very quickly. He has incentives because the Republican hold on the House will be shaky and the Democratic hold on the Senate looks shaky. This President anticipates trouble well and deals with it without delay.

4. Every month that passes without such happening makes such much less likely.

Americans are getting more fussy about politics altogether, which is a good thing. When it comes to voting, Americans end up grading on a curve. If the President's approval rating is 48% but the opponent has a favorability rating around 42%, then guess who wins! Should Americans be getting more fussy about politics? Without question. We recently had a horrible President, and the House of Representatives is achieving nothing.

President Obama could win the electoral vote despite being second in the popular vote.   

Presidential elections are, by and large, a referendum on the economy. Obama is pretty much cooked unless either the economy improves [almost too late for that since perception lags reality,] or he can successfully change the subject [the economy almost always being the main subject.]

Obamanomics has been a disaster. He has created such uncertainty that unemployment is apt to remain high until after he leaves office. Let's hope for the sake of the unemployed that that is in January of 2013.

[pbrower2a]

Nobody can predict who the 'likely voters' are.  

Perhaps Muon2 can enlighten you on how statistics work. "Voters" can't be predicted, but "likely voters" can. Sure, some voters that are not "likely voters" will in fact vote in the next election, and voters whom are "likely" to vote may not, but, the underlying statistical models underpinning the filter can be mathematically and empirically sound.

There is no doubt that a "likely voter" screen is a better way to poll when you get quite close to an actual election, but one year out it's a bit vague as to how useful that screening is.

This far out, I actually like what Marist/McClatchy and Fox (Opinion Dynamics) do which is run a poll of registered voters, and then NOT slam the undecided hard for a reply.

By limiting the pool to RVs you eliminate the folks who are really unlikley to vote, and by not slamming the undecided, you get the opinion of those who are at least marginally engaged in the process enough to have an a actual opinion.

McClatchy says 43/50 => -7, which is pretty much identical to Fox's 42/48 => -6

The Gold Standard poll (HART/McINTURFF for NBC/WSJ) says 44/51 => -7 which I think is pretty close to reality.

Obama is (IMHO) is in that grey area of polling where is is clearly vulnerable, but also not dead in the water. - Obama's polling looks a lot like Bush II in the summer of 2004 (Obama is maybe a few points weaker) - weak, with a very passionate and intense core of opposition, but also a base that is "hanging in there" and likely facing a challenger in the General election that is less than optimal....

Assuming the Obama folks can bury any ethics scandals, and assuming the GOP gets a flawed candidate, Obama can still will.  It's going to be very close.

President Obama is indeed cooked if...

(1) The Republicans find a really-strong, moderate opponent. A RINO could beat him... or a conservative capable of allaying concerns about whether the GOP agenda would be nothing more than All for the Few. 

(2) He has a significant and discrediting scandal that entails personal gain for raiding the public assets. If Dubya could survive Enron, then the President can survive Solyndra, the latter more a bad judgment on a business model than cronyism.

(3) He assumes that he will be re-elected so he doesn't need to campaign.

(4) The US economy goes very bad very fast.

1. The Republicans aren't running any RINO, and with the politicians that they now have they are not making significant inroads onto the "Blue Firewall" except perhaps New Hampshire -- if Mitt Romney can convince the Granite State that he is one of them.  He is up by nearly 10 points -- which is not surprising when he is much of the news in a state rarely known as a source for news.  If anything the President is consolidating a hold in Ohio, a state that the Republicans absolutely dare not lose.  This President saved the auto industry, or at least two of the Big Three.

2. There may be no scandal to cover up. If Dubya could survive Enron, this President can survive Solyndra.

3. This is a question of personality. Will he do any active campaigning? He seems to enjoy it. He built one of the finest campaign apparatuses ever in 2008 and he can get that back in operation very quickly. He has incentives because the Republican hold on the House will be shaky and the Democratic hold on the Senate looks shaky. This President anticipates trouble well and deals with it without delay.

4. Every month that passes without such happening makes such much less likely.

Americans are getting more fussy about politics altogether, which is a good thing. When it comes to voting, Americans end up grading on a curve. If the President's approval rating is 48% but the opponent has a favorability rating around 42%, then guess who wins! Should Americans be getting more fussy about politics? Without question. We recently had a horrible President, and the House of Representatives is achieving nothing.

President Obama could win the electoral vote despite being second in the popular vote.   

Presidential elections are, by and large, a referendum on the economy. Obama is pretty much cooked unless either the economy improves [almost too late for that since perception lags reality,] or he can successfully change the subject [the economy almost always being the main subject.]

Obamanomics has been a disaster. He has created such uncertainty that unemployment is apt to remain high until after he leaves office. Let's hope for the sake of the unemployed that that is in January of 2013.

The economic realities of the Dubya era included:

1. A capital-devouring speculative bubble in real estate. This bubble collapsed when housing prices overtook any reasonable possibility of buyers having the capacity to buy houses. When the construction ended, then the jobs related to that boom also ended.

2. The gutting of manufacturing jobs due to corporate choices (with which the Right acquiesced)  to become importers instead of manufacturers. Manufacturing jobs have typically been the most reliable means out of poverty and for staying out of poverty. Rarely are they the first choices for most people -- but there are only so many professional jobs out there.

3. Extreme intensification of economic inequality. The Gini coefficient for the United States, which had been on par with European democracies in the 1970s, is now on par with countries infamous for severe disparities of wealth and poverty. Economic inequality in the US is typical of a fascist dictatorship, a kleptocracy, or an economy with feudal characteristics. In our case it is an executive elite that enriches itself by destroying competition and paring the payroll for its own compensation.

4. Huge military expenditures on wars for the profits of military contractors and the glorification of the political leadership. Those have a tendency to create jobs during a war, but as the expenditures approach an end, the wartime jobs disappear. President Obama has been getting us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, but such implies an end of a gravy train for some giant corporations and huge job losses.

The analogy to the current economy may be to the 1930s.  FDR was able to win re-election in a landslide in 1936 despite high unemployment. At this point, all that anyone can hope for is slow and continuing improvement with major reforms of the system. The Republicans got their second chance to show what they have to offer with their House majority, and they have blown it badly.

   

[BigSkyBob]

Nobody can predict who the 'likely voters' are.  

Perhaps Muon2 can enlighten you on how statistics work. "Voters" can't be predicted, but "likely voters" can. Sure, some voters that are not "likely voters" will in fact vote in the next election, and voters whom are "likely" to vote may not, but, the underlying statistical models underpinning the filter can be mathematically and empirically sound.

There is no doubt that a "likely voter" screen is a better way to poll when you get quite close to an actual election, but one year out it's a bit vague as to how useful that screening is.

This far out, I actually like what Marist/McClatchy and Fox (Opinion Dynamics) do which is run a poll of registered voters, and then NOT slam the undecided hard for a reply.

By limiting the pool to RVs you eliminate the folks who are really unlikley to vote, and by not slamming the undecided, you get the opinion of those who are at least marginally engaged in the process enough to have an a actual opinion.

McClatchy says 43/50 => -7, which is pretty much identical to Fox's 42/48 => -6

The Gold Standard poll (HART/McINTURFF for NBC/WSJ) says 44/51 => -7 which I think is pretty close to reality.

Obama is (IMHO) is in that grey area of polling where is is clearly vulnerable, but also not dead in the water. - Obama's polling looks a lot like Bush II in the summer of 2004 (Obama is maybe a few points weaker) - weak, with a very passionate and intense core of opposition, but also a base that is "hanging in there" and likely facing a challenger in the General election that is less than optimal....

Assuming the Obama folks can bury any ethics scandals, and assuming the GOP gets a flawed candidate, Obama can still will.  It's going to be very close.

President Obama is indeed cooked if...

(1) The Republicans find a really-strong, moderate opponent. A RINO could beat him... or a conservative capable of allaying concerns about whether the GOP agenda would be nothing more than All for the Few. 

(2) He has a significant and discrediting scandal that entails personal gain for raiding the public assets. If Dubya could survive Enron, then the President can survive Solyndra, the latter more a bad judgment on a business model than cronyism.

(3) He assumes that he will be re-elected so he doesn't need to campaign.

(4) The US economy goes very bad very fast.

1. The Republicans aren't running any RINO, and with the politicians that they now have they are not making significant inroads onto the "Blue Firewall" except perhaps New Hampshire -- if Mitt Romney can convince the Granite State that he is one of them.  He is up by nearly 10 points -- which is not surprising when he is much of the news in a state rarely known as a source for news.  If anything the President is consolidating a hold in Ohio, a state that the Republicans absolutely dare not lose.  This President saved the auto industry, or at least two of the Big Three.

2. There may be no scandal to cover up. If Dubya could survive Enron, this President can survive Solyndra.

3. This is a question of personality. Will he do any active campaigning? He seems to enjoy it. He built one of the finest campaign apparatuses ever in 2008 and he can get that back in operation very quickly. He has incentives because the Republican hold on the House will be shaky and the Democratic hold on the Senate looks shaky. This President anticipates trouble well and deals with it without delay.

4. Every month that passes without such happening makes such much less likely.

Americans are getting more fussy about politics altogether, which is a good thing. When it comes to voting, Americans end up grading on a curve. If the President's approval rating is 48% but the opponent has a favorability rating around 42%, then guess who wins! Should Americans be getting more fussy about politics? Without question. We recently had a horrible President, and the House of Representatives is achieving nothing.

President Obama could win the electoral vote despite being second in the popular vote.   

Presidential elections are, by and large, a referendum on the economy. Obama is pretty much cooked unless either the economy improves [almost too late for that since perception lags reality,] or he can successfully change the subject [the economy almost always being the main subject.]

Obamanomics has been a disaster. He has created such uncertainty that unemployment is apt to remain high until after he leaves office. Let's hope for the sake of the unemployed that that is in January of 2013.

The economic realities of the Dubya era included:

1. A capital-devouring speculative bubble in real estate. This bubble collapsed when housing prices overtook any reasonable possibility of buyers having the capacity to buy houses. When the construction ended, then the jobs related to that boom also ended.

2. The gutting of manufacturing jobs due to corporate choices (with which the Right acquiesced)  to become importers instead of manufacturers. Manufacturing jobs have typically been the most reliable means out of poverty and for staying out of poverty. Rarely are they the first choices for most people -- but there are only so many professional jobs out there.

3. Extreme intensification of economic inequality. The Gini coefficient for the United States, which had been on par with European democracies in the 1970s, is now on par with countries infamous for severe disparities of wealth and poverty. Economic inequality in the US is typical of a fascist dictatorship, a kleptocracy, or an economy with feudal characteristics. In our case it is an executive elite that enriches itself by destroying competition and paring the payroll for its own compensation.

4. Huge military expenditures on wars for the profits of military contractors and the glorification of the political leadership. Those have a tendency to create jobs during a war, but as the expenditures approach an end, the wartime jobs disappear. President Obama has been getting us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, but such implies an end of a gravy train for some giant corporations and huge job losses.

The analogy to the current economy may be to the 1930s.  FDR was able to win re-election in a landslide in 1936 despite high unemployment. At this point, all that anyone can hope for is slow and continuing improvement with major reforms of the system. The Republicans got their second chance to show what they have to offer with their House majority, and they have blown it badly.

   

Have to say that if I were a Democrat I'd rather run against Bush than for Obama. Too bad for Democrats that 2012 will be a referendum on Obama's handling of the economy as much as 2008 was a referendum on the Bush's handling of the economy.

[Mr.Phips]

Nobody can predict who the 'likely voters' are.  

Perhaps Muon2 can enlighten you on how statistics work. "Voters" can't be predicted, but "likely voters" can. Sure, some voters that are not "likely voters" will in fact vote in the next election, and voters whom are "likely" to vote may not, but, the underlying statistical models underpinning the filter can be mathematically and empirically sound.

There is no doubt that a "likely voter" screen is a better way to poll when you get quite close to an actual election, but one year out it's a bit vague as to how useful that screening is.

This far out, I actually like what Marist/McClatchy and Fox (Opinion Dynamics) do which is run a poll of registered voters, and then NOT slam the undecided hard for a reply.

By limiting the pool to RVs you eliminate the folks who are really unlikley to vote, and by not slamming the undecided, you get the opinion of those who are at least marginally engaged in the process enough to have an a actual opinion.

McClatchy says 43/50 => -7, which is pretty much identical to Fox's 42/48 => -6

The Gold Standard poll (HART/McINTURFF for NBC/WSJ) says 44/51 => -7 which I think is pretty close to reality.

Obama is (IMHO) is in that grey area of polling where is is clearly vulnerable, but also not dead in the water. - Obama's polling looks a lot like Bush II in the summer of 2004 (Obama is maybe a few points weaker) - weak, with a very passionate and intense core of opposition, but also a base that is "hanging in there" and likely facing a challenger in the General election that is less than optimal....

Assuming the Obama folks can bury any ethics scandals, and assuming the GOP gets a flawed candidate, Obama can still will.  It's going to be very close.

President Obama is indeed cooked if...

(1) The Republicans find a really-strong, moderate opponent. A RINO could beat him... or a conservative capable of allaying concerns about whether the GOP agenda would be nothing more than All for the Few. 

(2) He has a significant and discrediting scandal that entails personal gain for raiding the public assets. If Dubya could survive Enron, then the President can survive Solyndra, the latter more a bad judgment on a business model than cronyism.

(3) He assumes that he will be re-elected so he doesn't need to campaign.

(4) The US economy goes very bad very fast.

1. The Republicans aren't running any RINO, and with the politicians that they now have they are not making significant inroads onto the "Blue Firewall" except perhaps New Hampshire -- if Mitt Romney can convince the Granite State that he is one of them.  He is up by nearly 10 points -- which is not surprising when he is much of the news in a state rarely known as a source for news.  If anything the President is consolidating a hold in Ohio, a state that the Republicans absolutely dare not lose.  This President saved the auto industry, or at least two of the Big Three.

2. There may be no scandal to cover up. If Dubya could survive Enron, this President can survive Solyndra.

3. This is a question of personality. Will he do any active campaigning? He seems to enjoy it. He built one of the finest campaign apparatuses ever in 2008 and he can get that back in operation very quickly. He has incentives because the Republican hold on the House will be shaky and the Democratic hold on the Senate looks shaky. This President anticipates trouble well and deals with it without delay.

4. Every month that passes without such happening makes such much less likely.

Americans are getting more fussy about politics altogether, which is a good thing. When it comes to voting, Americans end up grading on a curve. If the President's approval rating is 48% but the opponent has a favorability rating around 42%, then guess who wins! Should Americans be getting more fussy about politics? Without question. We recently had a horrible President, and the House of Representatives is achieving nothing.

President Obama could win the electoral vote despite being second in the popular vote.   

Presidential elections are, by and large, a referendum on the economy. Obama is pretty much cooked unless either the economy improves [almost too late for that since perception lags reality,] or he can successfully change the subject [the economy almost always being the main subject.]

Obamanomics has been a disaster. He has created such uncertainty that unemployment is apt to remain high until after he leaves office. Let's hope for the sake of the unemployed that that is in January of 2013.

The economic realities of the Dubya era included:

1. A capital-devouring speculative bubble in real estate. This bubble collapsed when housing prices overtook any reasonable possibility of buyers having the capacity to buy houses. When the construction ended, then the jobs related to that boom also ended.

2. The gutting of manufacturing jobs due to corporate choices (with which the Right acquiesced)  to become importers instead of manufacturers. Manufacturing jobs have typically been the most reliable means out of poverty and for staying out of poverty. Rarely are they the first choices for most people -- but there are only so many professional jobs out there.

3. Extreme intensification of economic inequality. The Gini coefficient for the United States, which had been on par with European democracies in the 1970s, is now on par with countries infamous for severe disparities of wealth and poverty. Economic inequality in the US is typical of a fascist dictatorship, a kleptocracy, or an economy with feudal characteristics. In our case it is an executive elite that enriches itself by destroying competition and paring the payroll for its own compensation.

4. Huge military expenditures on wars for the profits of military contractors and the glorification of the political leadership. Those have a tendency to create jobs during a war, but as the expenditures approach an end, the wartime jobs disappear. President Obama has been getting us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, but such implies an end of a gravy train for some giant corporations and huge job losses.

The analogy to the current economy may be to the 1930s.  FDR was able to win re-election in a landslide in 1936 despite high unemployment. At this point, all that anyone can hope for is slow and continuing improvement with major reforms of the system. The Republicans got their second chance to show what they have to offer with their House majority, and they have blown it badly.

   

This is a completely different time than 1936.  If the current period was comparable to 1936, Democrats would have gained seats in 2010 like in 1934. 

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It is far more analogous to 1940 in that the President does badly on the economy, but does well on foreign policy. In 1940, it was WWII breaking out in Europe that saved FDR by knocking the economy down a few rungs as the most important issue. Most came to the conclusion that he had failed to the end the Depression, but prefered a two term President to a guy with no political experience when the things went to hell in a hand basket in Europe. The question for Obama is, what could arise overseas that won't be spun successfully by the opposition as being a result of a failure by Obama. Considering the realities of the modern US and it's role in the world compared to 1939 and 1940, there is little that can occur that can't be connected with the President's foreign policy as far as a campaign goes. Back then the US was far less engaged in the world as a matter of practice and principle stretching back to Washington.  

It is also similar in that the President had a very unfavorable result in the previous midterm election. In 1938, Republicans had gained enough seats to block legislation in conjunction with Conservative Democrats in the South and other places. In 2010, the Republicans took the House.


Such is the 1930's on an expedited time scale. 1934 and 1936 are skipped because of the higher level of impatience on the part of the electorate, the 24 hour news cycle and of course the much higher level of distrust in gov't. In the 1930's, gov't wasn't so disliked by the people that it was on the same level as bankers almost like it is now. As such, people embraced programs and reforms made by gov't to fix problems and only turned against FDR once the results were inferior to what was desired. Now, people turned against programs even before they are passed going back to the Bush administration. There is no grace period of "well let's give him a chance to clean it up". It's "fix it now, or you are gone".

[Tender Branson]

Rasmussen: 46-52

Gallup: 43-47

[BigSkyBob]

Rasmussen: 46-52

22-40 SA/D

Gallup: 43-47

[pbrower2a]

It is far more analogous to 1940 in that the President does badly on the economy, but does well on foreign policy. In 1940, it was WWII breaking out in Europe that saved FDR by knocking the economy down a few rungs as the most important issue. Most came to the conclusion that he had failed to the end the Depression, but prefered a two term President to a guy with no political experience when the things went to hell in a hand basket in Europe. The question for Obama is, what could arise overseas that won't be spun successfully by the opposition as being a result of a failure by Obama. Considering the realities of the modern US and it's role in the world compared to 1939 and 1940, there is little that can occur that can't be connected with the President's foreign policy as far as a campaign goes. Back then the US was far less engaged in the world as a matter of practice and principle stretching back to Washington.  

It is also similar in that the President had a very unfavorable result in the previous midterm election. In 1938, Republicans had gained enough seats to block legislation in conjunction with Conservative Democrats in the South and other places. In 2010, the Republicans took the House.


Such is the 1930's on an expedited time scale. 1934 and 1936 are skipped because of the higher level of impatience on the part of the electorate, the 24 hour news cycle and of course the much higher level of distrust in gov't. In the 1930's, gov't wasn't so disliked by the people that it was on the same level as bankers almost like it is now. As such, people embraced programs and reforms made by gov't to fix problems and only turned against FDR once the results were inferior to what was desired. Now, people turned against programs even before they are passed going back to the Bush administration. There is no grace period of "well let's give him a chance to clean it up". It's "fix it now, or you are gone".

The 1930s are still more relevant to this decade than any later decade, and this decade is more like the 1930s than is any other subsequent decade. To be sure the 1930s began in peace and ended in the worst war in history;  the technology of the news (including polling) is vastly advanced. But the '30s/'10s analogue is awkward in one respect; the Republicans underwent a severe defeat in 2006 before the economy melted down. If 2006 was the political equivalent of 1930 and 2008 was the political equivalent of 1932, then  2007 was the economic equivalent of 1929 and 2009 was the economic equivalent of 1931 -- at least at the start. We may have been spared the economic equivalents of late 1931 through late 1932 that put the world into a rut that rook a long time to get out of.  The rut this time is not so severe, but it is no easier to get out of.

To predict whether the President will be re-elected we need to imagine how he can fail. I look at the failures of the last 110 years and I see huge differences. William Howard Taft was temperamentally unsuited to the Presidency; he made a fine judge and Chief Justice. Such could be the conceivable future for this President -- except that he is temperamentally suited to the Presidency. If re-elected he could have a rest-of-his-life much like Taft.

Hoover? That would take a reprise of the current meltdown... but this time there is no speculative boom to go awry. The relevant boom died four years ago.

Ford? Mediocre President, awful campaigner. President Obama is at worst a mediocre President and a superb campaigner.

Carter? A favorite analogue that very partisan Republicans like to see, but this President has foreign-policy successes and no stagflation to hurt him.  He also has far more legislative achievements than Carter. Jimmy Carter was one of the least effective Presidents ever, and his one win depended upon holding onto a coalition of poor blacks and poor whites in the South that seems unlikely to ever be put together again.

The elder Bush? I think that no President since John Knox Polk ever so achieved everything that he wanted to accomplish in one term and had nothing left to achieve. Successes in foreign policy rarely have sequels. Bill Clinton adopted the foreign policy of the elder Bush in practice. It is unfortunate that Dubya didn't.

I think that Republican candidates for President would be wise to concede successes in  foreign policy to President Obama as a done deal and promise to continue it. The current carping about the President's foreign policy is analogous to complaining that Romeo and Juliet would be better with a happy ending,  that Beethoven should have used a different text in the last movement of his Choral (Ninth) Symphony, or that Vincent van Gogh should have put his stars in a discernible constellations in http://www.most-famous-paintings.org/Starry-Night-large.html. 

Now as for the economy -- I predict that the President will run against Congress. That is more  analogous to 1948 than to any time between 1930 and 1940.  The Republicans have shown what their economic agenda is after suggesting that it is a new and improved version of recent Republican policies that might stimulate economic growth. That agenda has been shown as nothing more than the enrichment of elites at the expense of everyone else. It implies major reductions in living standards that would require incredible economic growth over decades just to compensate for the mass hardships.  Who wants a fresh start in a return to the Gilded Age or even the Roaring Twenties?