The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[BigSkyBob]

Rasmussen:

23-38 [-15]

47-51

[Skill and Chance]

Rasmussen:

23-38 [-15]

47-51

The strongly disapprove vs. strongly approve business is irrelevant, unless one of the two somehow exceeds 50%.  Everyone gets one vote.  It doesn't matter how passionate that vote is.  It might matter for fund raising, but Obama is presently romping there anyway. 

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry 2016!]

The strongly disapprove vs. strongly approve business is irrelevant, unless one of the two somehow exceeds 50%.  Everyone gets one vote.  It doesn't matter how passionate that vote is.

Less passionate voters are less likely to bother voting.

[BigSkyBob]

Rasmussen:

23-38 [-15]

47-51

The strongly disapprove vs. strongly approve business is irrelevant, unless one of the two somehow exceeds 50%. 

I would say that the mid-forties is the danger area, while 50% is fatal.

Everyone gets one vote.  It doesn't matter how passionate that vote is.  It might matter for fund raising, but Obama is presently romping there anyway. 

[Skill and Chance]

Rasmussen:

23-38 [-15]

47-51

The strongly disapprove vs. strongly approve business is irrelevant, unless one of the two somehow exceeds 50%. 

I would say that the mid-forties is the danger area, while 50% is fatal.

Everyone gets one vote.  It doesn't matter how passionate that vote is.  It might matter for fund raising, but Obama is presently romping there anyway. 

So if next Nov 1, Obama is at 50%A/46%D and 45% disapprove strongly, you would predict he would lose?  I don't agree.  Similarly, an incumbent with 44% approval and 43% approve strongly, probably still isn't going to win.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I think there's an implied 'all else being equal' in Bob's post. (There's also an implied 'hackish bull' in all or most or Bob's posts, but I don't think that's as intentional on the part of the author.)

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Rasmussen:

23-38 [-15]

47-51

The strongly disapprove vs. strongly approve business is irrelevant, unless one of the two somehow exceeds 50%.

I would say that the mid-forties is the danger area, while 50% is fatal.

Everyone gets one vote.  It doesn't matter how passionate that vote is.  It might matter for fund raising, but Obama is presently romping there anyway. 

So if next Nov 1, Obama is at 50%A/46%D and 45% disapprove strongly, you would predict he would lose?  I don't agree.  Similarly, an incumbent with 44% approval and 43% approve strongly, probably still isn't going to win.

It reflects an intensity gap that coud swing a tied race against him based on turnout. But not much more.

[Skill and Chance]

Rasmussen:

23-38 [-15]

47-51

The strongly disapprove vs. strongly approve business is irrelevant, unless one of the two somehow exceeds 50%.

I would say that the mid-forties is the danger area, while 50% is fatal.

Everyone gets one vote.  It doesn't matter how passionate that vote is.  It might matter for fund raising, but Obama is presently romping there anyway. 

So if next Nov 1, Obama is at 50%A/46%D and 45% disapprove strongly, you would predict he would lose?  I don't agree.  Similarly, an incumbent with 44% approval and 43% approve strongly, probably still isn't going to win.

It reflects an intensity gap that coud swing a tied race against him based on turnout. But not much more.

Intensity gaps are accounted for by using a Likely Voters model.  And polling "likely voters" a year before the election raises its own issues (ex. 18th birthday in 2012, citizenship in 2012, etc.). 

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Apples and Oranges.

[J. J.]

Actually, Obama's numbers have improved a great deal.  45% on Gallup is survivable. 

[Skill and Chance]

Actually, Obama's numbers have improved a great deal.  45% on Gallup is survivable. 

I still think he would lose to Romney by a state or two if the election were next month.  That having been said, it's becoming increasingly obvious that he will win with any noticeable economic improvement in 2012.  Romney can beat him in the economic status quo.  If anyone else wins the GOP nomination, they will probably need another 2008-style crash before the election to beat him.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry 2016!]

Today:

Gallup - 43/50
Rasmussen - 45/52

[pbrower2a]

Actually, Obama's numbers have improved a great deal.  45% on Gallup is survivable. 

I still think he would lose to Romney by a state or two if the election were next month.  That having been said, it's becoming increasingly obvious that he will win with any noticeable economic improvement in 2012.  Romney can beat him in the economic status quo.  If anyone else wins the GOP nomination, they will probably need another 2008-style crash before the election to beat him.

At this point the President would lose if  he failed to campaign for re-election or campaigned ineffectively. The Democrats have yet to harp on Mitt Romney's ideological inconsistencies and his participation in corporate restructuring that on the net destroyed jobs. The Democrats (and especially liberal-leaning media) have unleashed the salvos on other possible GOP nominees  except for Romney. The kid gloves toward him stay on so long as someone else is the front-runner but come off once the campaign begins in earnest.   

In general one can add an average of 6% to the approval rating of an incumbent Governor or Senator at the start of the campaign season to get the percentage of the total vote for the incumbent.  Because the Presidential campaign is basically 50 statewide elections won much as gubernatorial or senatorial races are won, you can expect much the same for an incumbent President. As a strict rule a challenger who ends up winning has a large lead with perhaps lots of undecided and the incumbent cuts into that large lead but not well enough because such a lead for the challenger is simply too much. Of course such shows that the incumbent is wildly unpopular for a good reason -- like being seen as extreme,  inept, aloof, or even corrupt. Add to that, the incumbent almost invariably has shown the ability to campaign for the office and set up a good electoral apparatus, which the challenger rarely does adeptly.

Challengers can carp at will about the incumbent until the nominations are in place. Add to that the incumbent can't operate in campaign mode all the time and is compelled to make decisions, such as budgeting and voting, likely to disappoint some who voted for him. Once the nominations are certain, the incumbent's campaign can dish out the negative campaign against the challenger.  Negative campaigns that question the ability of the challenger to do as effectively may be the last resort -- but that is how Dubya won re-election in 2004.

The argument that the President is an extremist is nothing new; it was used against him in 2008 and proved inadequate. Such is likely to be as ineffective an argument against the President this time as it was against Ronald Reagan in 1984. People who thought that he was disloyal or suspect in loyalty to America, that he was going to take away firearms from people who have veritable fetishes about them, that he was a secret Muslim (with FDR it was that FDR was really a Jew,  which was then about as distant from the political mainstream), or that he would operate as an autocrat are still convinced of that.

The 2012 election will be in part a referendum on foreign policy and economic improvement. The President is solid on foreign policy and military matters. Now for the economy -- can he win with a weak economy?

Absolutely not if the economy tanks. There's just too little to tank. We don't have a corrupt speculative boom  set to implode; the last boom imploded three to four years ago. Slow improvement is the best that anyone can ask for even if it means that things are now less attractive than they were five years ago. FDR was able to get re-elected despite unemployment higher than what President Obama has staring at him.       

[The Vorlon]

Obama is pretty stable re job approval right now.

A poll to the same poll comparison shows approval staying in the upper end of the 40-45% range, and disapproval hanging in right around 50% for a net of -6 or -7.

Normally....

50% approval = reelection
40% approval = dead in the water

Obama is slightly to the dark side of the grey area.

Of course these numbers are meaningless right now, tune in in 3 months and these numbers start to have an actual predictive value for November 2012.

[J. J.]

I'll try to get back to daily numbers after the holiday.

[Mr.Phips]

Actually, Obama's numbers have improved a great deal.  45% on Gallup is survivable. 

I still think he would lose to Romney by a state or two if the election were next month.  That having been said, it's becoming increasingly obvious that he will win with any noticeable economic improvement in 2012.  Romney can beat him in the economic status quo.  If anyone else wins the GOP nomination, they will probably need another 2008-style crash before the election to beat him.

At this point the President would lose if  he failed to campaign for re-election or campaigned ineffectively. The Democrats have yet to harp on Mitt Romney's ideological inconsistencies and his participation in corporate restructuring that on the net destroyed jobs. The Democrats (and especially liberal-leaning media) have unleashed the salvos on other possible GOP nominees  except for Romney. The kid gloves toward him stay on so long as someone else is the front-runner but come off once the campaign begins in earnest.   

In general one can add an average of 6% to the approval rating of an incumbent Governor or Senator at the start of the campaign season to get the percentage of the total vote for the incumbent.  Because the Presidential campaign is basically 50 statewide elections won much as gubernatorial or senatorial races are won, you can expect much the same for an incumbent President. As a strict rule a challenger who ends up winning has a large lead with perhaps lots of undecided and the incumbent cuts into that large lead but not well enough because such a lead for the challenger is simply too much. Of course such shows that the incumbent is wildly unpopular for a good reason -- like being seen as extreme,  inept, aloof, or even corrupt. Add to that, the incumbent almost invariably has shown the ability to campaign for the office and set up a good electoral apparatus, which the challenger rarely does adeptly.

Challengers can carp at will about the incumbent until the nominations are in place. Add to that the incumbent can't operate in campaign mode all the time and is compelled to make decisions, such as budgeting and voting, likely to disappoint some who voted for him. Once the nominations are certain, the incumbent's campaign can dish out the negative campaign against the challenger.  Negative campaigns that question the ability of the challenger to do as effectively may be the last resort -- but that is how Dubya won re-election in 2004.

The argument that the President is an extremist is nothing new; it was used against him in 2008 and proved inadequate. Such is likely to be as ineffective an argument against the President this time as it was against Ronald Reagan in 1984. People who thought that he was disloyal or suspect in loyalty to America, that he was going to take away firearms from people who have veritable fetishes about them, that he was a secret Muslim (with FDR it was that FDR was really a Jew,  which was then about as distant from the political mainstream), or that he would operate as an autocrat are still convinced of that.

The 2012 election will be in part a referendum on foreign policy and economic improvement. The President is solid on foreign policy and military matters. Now for the economy -- can he win with a weak economy?

Absolutely not if the economy tanks. There's just too little to tank. We don't have a corrupt speculative boom  set to implode; the last boom imploded three to four years ago. Slow improvement is the best that anyone can ask for even if it means that things are now less attractive than they were five years ago. FDR was able to get re-elected despite unemployment higher than what President Obama has staring at him.       

Stop comparing Obama to FDR.  FDR saw unemployment drop from 25% in 1933 to 16% in 1936 and he also gained seats in 1934, showing that he and his party had a lot more goodwill with the American people than Obama does. 

[pbrower2a]

Stop comparing Obama to FDR.  FDR saw unemployment drop from 25% in 1933 to 16% in 1936 and he also gained seats in 1934, showing that he and his party had a lot more goodwill with the American people than Obama does. 

Please stop comparing Barack Obama to Herbert Hoover or Jimmy Carter.

Unemployment is a lagging indicator; FDR took just after the economy bottomed out after a three-year economic meltdown; Barack Obama took over before the end of a year-and-a-half economic meltdown. In 1934 the Republican Party and its front groups had not yet developed  the sort of Orwellian propaganda with deep-pockets support behind it that they used in 2010. That is a huge change in politics, and if that change remains effective in 2012, then President Obama will surely be defeated or at least marginalized.

This depression is hardly as severe as that of 1929-1940... but it could easily have been. The first eighteen months of the 2007-2009 meltdown was as severe as the first eighteen months of the 1929-1933 meltdown. Please give this President some credit for the end of the decline, if nothing more than credit for not making things worse and for promoting some gimmicks to stop the economic bleeding. 

[The Vorlon]

Please give this President some credit for the end of the decline, if nothing more than credit for not making things worse and for promoting some gimmicks to stop the economic bleeding.  

That is actually a matter of some debate.

Obama has essentially slow walked the housing crisis, he has made it harder for the banks for foreclose, but he has put very little of actual substance on the table to actually fix the problem.

I would also note that according to the Director of the Congressional Budget office, that the net effect of Obama's "stimulus" will be a slightly smaller economy and a lower GDP than if it had never been enacted. - Again, this is from the Director of the (semi) non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h_rDrd97sY&feature=player_embedded

Hundreds of billions of dollars in payoffs to teachers, labor unions, and crony capitalism friends, in exchange for a massively higher debt, larger debt servicing costs AND fewer jobs and a lower GDP at the end of it all is not exactly a matter that is universally regarded as beneficial.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44%.

Disapprove 54%.

"Strongly Approve" is at 21%.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 41%.

I'll start with the changes tomorrow.

[J. J.]

Gallup Daily:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

Approve:  44%

Disapprove:  47%

Gallup is useful for historical comparisons.  At 44% approval, Obama is easily able to survive, i.e. other presidents have won with equal or lower numbers.  The key will be if the number drops to the 40% or below mark consistently.

[J. J.]

Not yet up on the chart, but in the text:  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44%, u.

Disapprove 55%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 20%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, +1.

[J. J.]

Gallup Daily:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

Approve:  43%, -1.

Disapprove:  49%, +2.

[Skill and Chance]

Hmmm... He's back down to -7 to -9 territory now.  I wonder what caused the late October-early November bump when it looked like he was moving back to 50/50 approvals?  It doesn't seem obvious at all.

[J. J.]

Hmmm... He's back down to -7 to -9 territory now.  I wonder what caused the late October-early November bump when it looked like he was moving back to 50/50 approvals?  It doesn't seem obvious at all.

At this point, 43% is survivable.

[Skill and Chance]

Hmmm... He's back down to -7 to -9 territory now.  I wonder what caused the late October-early November bump when it looked like he was moving back to 50/50 approvals?  It doesn't seem obvious at all.

At this point, 43% is survivable.

I don't agree.  If he's running against Romney and he isn't back to up to 47-49% range by election day, he won't win.