Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 25, 2014, 06:35:37 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | |-+  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 377 378 379 380 381 [382] 383 384 385 386 387 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 676536 times)
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 25404
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9525 on: March 02, 2012, 01:48:33 pm »
Ignore

GOP didn't even have +5 when Bush was re-elected.
Logged

It's still rather frustrating when you consider how many people with far better work histories than Jeff have to spend months or years unemployed before they finally get an offer.

Life is not fair.
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14670
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #9526 on: March 02, 2012, 02:18:51 pm »
Ignore

GOP didn't even have +5 when Bush was re-elected.

In 2004, Democrats and Republicans each comprised 37% of the electorate. Independents, at 28%, narrowly broke for Kerry (49-48). It could be said that Bush 43 owed his re-election to 'Bush Democrats'
Logged

Moderate Liberal Populist Smiley [Personal 45%/Economic 42%] / Defense 'Hawk'

Registered in Georgia for Fantasy Politics
Tidewater_Wave
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 525
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9527 on: March 02, 2012, 04:55:30 pm »
Ignore

Republicans leading is a tremendous sign for them. Even if we were down by 5 I'd still bet on us winning the house. If I remember correctly more people voted Democrat for congress in 2002 and 2004 and the GOP still won. I don't mean in terms of party turnout, but based on the percentages of people voting for a candidate in either party throughout the nation.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32039
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9528 on: March 02, 2012, 04:58:25 pm »
Ignore



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

Approve:  47%, +1

Disapprove:  48%, -1


Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32039
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9529 on: March 03, 2012, 09:49:09 am »
Ignore



Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 46%, -2.

Disapprove 53%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 27%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at  41%, u.

Yesterday, I had Strongly Disapprove even at 40.  It had gone up to 41.

Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9167
Ireland, Republic of
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

View Profile
« Reply #9530 on: March 03, 2012, 11:08:45 am »
Ignore

This thread is great because you've got J.J. holding court on how Obama is looking "grim" according to the approval numbers despite the fact that almost every poll shows him comfortably winning re-election.
Logged

Quote
   <peeperkorn> this forum is full of allergic virgins with nosebleeding
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32039
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9531 on: March 03, 2012, 11:17:47 am »
Ignore

This thread is great because you've got J.J. holding court on how Obama is looking "grim" according to the approval numbers despite the fact that almost every poll shows him comfortably winning re-election.

No, this thread is about approval numbers of an incumbent running for re-election.  It looks at historical numbers regarding how Obama is doing based on past presidents, some who were re-elect and some who were not.

And, yes, it is starting to look grim.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
ajb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 872
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9532 on: March 03, 2012, 11:22:11 am »
Ignore

This thread is great because you've got J.J. holding court on how Obama is looking "grim" according to the approval numbers despite the fact that almost every poll shows him comfortably winning re-election.

No, this thread is about approval numbers of an incumbent running for re-election.  It looks at historical numbers regarding how Obama is doing based on past presidents, some who were re-elect and some who were not.

And, yes, it is starting to look grim.

Mind you, you know what looks really grim?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/fav-romney_n_725770.html
Logged
Earthling
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 747
Netherlands


View Profile
« Reply #9533 on: March 03, 2012, 11:41:56 am »
Ignore

It looks grim when you only look at the Rasmussen and Gallup numbers. Other pollsters have Obama around 50%.

Gallup and Rasmussen are not the only numbers out there. The fact that they poll everyday gives them just more media attention (and Atlas attention)
Logged

Quote
There's no I in team, but there is a ME

J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32039
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9534 on: March 03, 2012, 11:49:51 am »
Ignore

This thread is great because you've got J.J. holding court on how Obama is looking "grim" according to the approval numbers despite the fact that almost every poll shows him comfortably winning re-election.

No, this thread is about approval numbers of an incumbent running for re-election.  It looks at historical numbers regarding how Obama is doing based on past presidents, some who were re-elect and some who were not.

And, yes, it is starting to look grim.

Mind you, you know what looks really grim?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/fav-romney_n_725770.html

Romney isn't the President, yet.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Earthling
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 747
Netherlands


View Profile
« Reply #9535 on: March 03, 2012, 11:50:51 am »
Ignore

And he won't be next year.
Logged

Quote
There's no I in team, but there is a ME

ajb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 872
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9536 on: March 03, 2012, 11:52:15 am »
Ignore

This thread is great because you've got J.J. holding court on how Obama is looking "grim" according to the approval numbers despite the fact that almost every poll shows him comfortably winning re-election.

No, this thread is about approval numbers of an incumbent running for re-election.  It looks at historical numbers regarding how Obama is doing based on past presidents, some who were re-elect and some who were not.

And, yes, it is starting to look grim.

Mind you, you know what looks really grim?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/fav-romney_n_725770.html

Romney isn't the President, yet.
Tell me, when was the last challenger who won with favorability numbers like Romney's?  Given your extensive thoughts on the relationship between presidential approval ratings and re-election prospects, I'm sure it's a question you've considered.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32039
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9537 on: March 03, 2012, 12:10:41 pm »
Ignore

This thread is great because you've got J.J. holding court on how Obama is looking "grim" according to the approval numbers despite the fact that almost every poll shows him comfortably winning re-election.

No, this thread is about approval numbers of an incumbent running for re-election.  It looks at historical numbers regarding how Obama is doing based on past presidents, some who were re-elect and some who were not.

And, yes, it is starting to look grim.

Mind you, you know what looks really grim?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/fav-romney_n_725770.html

Romney isn't the President, yet.
Tell me, when was the last challenger who won with favorability numbers like Romney's?  Given your extensive thoughts on the relationship between presidential approval ratings and re-election prospects, I'm sure it's a question you've considered.

Possibly: Clinton, 1992.  Reagan, 1980.  I know that the spring of 1992, Clinton was actually running third.

If you ask the question, which this thread is about, what president won re-election with numbers at or below 45% on Gallup at any point after January 1 on the year they were elected, the only answer is Truman since WW II.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
ajb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 872
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9538 on: March 03, 2012, 12:14:24 pm »
Ignore

This thread is great because you've got J.J. holding court on how Obama is looking "grim" according to the approval numbers despite the fact that almost every poll shows him comfortably winning re-election.

No, this thread is about approval numbers of an incumbent running for re-election.  It looks at historical numbers regarding how Obama is doing based on past presidents, some who were re-elect and some who were not.

And, yes, it is starting to look grim.

Mind you, you know what looks really grim?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/fav-romney_n_725770.html

Romney isn't the President, yet.
Tell me, when was the last challenger who won with favorability numbers like Romney's?  Given your extensive thoughts on the relationship between presidential approval ratings and re-election prospects, I'm sure it's a question you've considered.

Possibly: Clinton, 1992.  Reagan, 1980.  I know that the spring of 1992, Clinton was actually running third.

If you ask the question, which this thread is about, what president won re-election with numbers at or below 45% on Gallup at any point after January 1 on the year they were elected, the only answer is Truman since WW II.

Did Clinton in March of 1992, and Reagan in March of 1980, also have unfavorable numbers nearly at 50%? I doubt it.

The thread is about Obama's approval ratings, not about whether a president has ever won re-election with an approval rating below 45%  at any point after January 1 in the year in which they were re-elected. And the popularity of the challenger would seem highly relevant to that thesis, especially at the margins, which is where we are here.
Logged
Earthling
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 747
Netherlands


View Profile
« Reply #9539 on: March 03, 2012, 12:16:02 pm »
Ignore

And the 45% is a number from one pollster. Other poll show him higher than that.
Logged

Quote
There's no I in team, but there is a ME

J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32039
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9540 on: March 03, 2012, 12:29:32 pm »
Ignore



Did Clinton in March of 1992, and Reagan in March of 1980, also have unfavorable numbers nearly at 50%? I doubt it.

Almost certainly Clinton did (Flowers).  I'd expect Reagan did.  Bush was still challenging and won PA in April.

Quote
The thread is about Obama's approval ratings, not about whether a president has ever won re-election with an approval rating below 45%  at any point after January 1 in the year in which they were re-elected. And the popularity of the challenger would seem highly relevant to that thesis, especially at the margins, which is where we are here.

This thread looks at Obama's popularity, and looks at it (in terms of Gallup), comparing it to past situations.  That has been here since it started.

There are threads which deal with the matchup, and you may want to post on those.  This is the discussion on just one set of numbers.

And the 45% is a number from one pollster. Other poll show him higher than that.

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

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Earthling
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 747
Netherlands


View Profile
« Reply #9541 on: March 03, 2012, 12:40:48 pm »
Ignore

Well, yes, Gallup maybe around the longest, but just using their numbers as THE numbers to predict November?
Logged

Quote
There's no I in team, but there is a ME

J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32039
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9542 on: March 03, 2012, 01:03:10 pm »
Ignore

Well, yes, Gallup maybe around the longest, but just using their numbers as THE numbers to predict November?

Well, I'm not yet predicting.  The numbers looking grim, which they are, doesn't yet translate into losing.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32039
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9543 on: March 03, 2012, 01:06:36 pm »
Ignore


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

Approve:  48%, +1

Disapprove:  46%, -2



Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Earthling
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 747
Netherlands


View Profile
« Reply #9544 on: March 03, 2012, 01:08:40 pm »
Ignore

Well, yes, Gallup maybe around the longest, but just using their numbers as THE numbers to predict November?

Well, I'm not yet predicting.  The numbers looking grim, which they are, doesn't yet translate into losing.

Yes, but they look grim if you only look at Gallup. They are much brighter when you look to other pollsters.
Logged

Quote
There's no I in team, but there is a ME

J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32039
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9545 on: March 03, 2012, 01:12:24 pm »
Ignore

Well, yes, Gallup maybe around the longest, but just using their numbers as THE numbers to predict November?

Well, I'm not yet predicting.  The numbers looking grim, which they are, doesn't yet translate into losing.

Yes, but they look grim if you only look at Gallup. They are much brighter when you look to other pollsters.

Not on the dailies.  The only other one we have is Rasmussen, and Obama is generally not doing well.

Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28477
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9546 on: March 03, 2012, 01:14:00 pm »
Ignore

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

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

My ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D/Working Families) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
TBD: Lex 1 School Board
Yes: Am. 1 (allow charity raffles)
No: Am. 2 (end election of the Adj. General)
No: Local Sales Tax
Yes: Temp Beer/Wine Permits
Earthling
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 747
Netherlands


View Profile
« Reply #9547 on: March 03, 2012, 01:18:08 pm »
Ignore

Well, yes, Gallup maybe around the longest, but just using their numbers as THE numbers to predict November?

Well, I'm not yet predicting.  The numbers looking grim, which they are, doesn't yet translate into losing.

Yes, but they look grim if you only look at Gallup. They are much brighter when you look to other pollsters.

Not on the dailies.  The only other one we have is Rasmussen, and Obama is generally not doing well.



The dailies aren't the only polls. The fact that you are polling every day doesn't make your poll automatically stronger than the other polls.

Rasmussen maybe has a Republican lean while Gallup's methods are outdated. I don't know if that is true, but it could make those polls less reliable.
Logged

Quote
There's no I in team, but there is a ME

J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32039
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9548 on: March 03, 2012, 01:19:32 pm »
Ignore

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

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

Gallup is useful for historic comparisons.  I will agree, it is possible Truman would be polling better 1948 if Gallup used today's technology.

It is poll to poll, it gives us a record, and Gallup had a good reputation.  It is useful for making comparisons.  Today, I think Rasmussen is more accurate, but they were not polling in 1980 or 1992, and I don't have access to their data.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32039
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9549 on: March 03, 2012, 01:22:24 pm »
Ignore



The dailies aren't the only polls. The fact that you are polling every day doesn't make your poll automatically stronger than the other polls.

Rasmussen maybe has a Republican lean while Gallup's methods are outdated. I don't know if that is true, but it could make those polls less reliable.

J. J.'s First Rule of Elections"If a candidate or his supporters that say something like 'I don't look at the polls,' or 'The only polls that matter are the ones on Election Day,' that candidate will lose."

You are darn close to violating that rule.  Smiley
 
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Pages: 1 ... 377 378 379 380 381 [382] 383 384 385 386 387 ... 410 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines