The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[Secretary of Labor Earthling]

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)

[J. J.]

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.

[Secretary of Labor Earthling]

And he won't be next year.

[ajb]

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.

[J. J.]

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.

[ajb]

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.

[Secretary of Labor Earthling]

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

[J. J.]

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.

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.

[Secretary of Labor Earthling]

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

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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

Approve:  48%, +1

Disapprove:  46%, -2

[Secretary of Labor Earthling]

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.

[J. J.]

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.

[True Federalist]

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.

[Secretary of Labor Earthling]

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.

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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. 
 

[Secretary of Labor Earthling]

Nonsens, I am not saying that, you are. By ignoring the other polls that are much better for Obama.

[ajb]

Gallup didn't conduct daily or weekly polling in 1948 (or 1988). So it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Your theory also suffers from a small sample size of eight or ten elections, depending on your definition of incumbent, and only two or three incumbents having been defeated.

[Iosif]

How many more times must JJ be proven wrong before people stop taking him seriously?

[I left.]

How many more times must JJ be proven wrong before people stop taking him seriously?

Does anyone here still take him seriously?

[oakvale]

BREAKING!



I don't know why I'm bothering to point this out, but the number of Presidential elections featuring an incumbent since approval polling began is so tiny that you can't actually draw meaningful conclusions from the numbers.

[J. J.]

Nonsens, I am not saying that, you are. By ignoring the other polls that are much better for Obama.

No. Gallup is the only one where we can make a poll to poll comparison.  Scott Rasmussen wasn't polling when he was 12.

You only need take the numbers seriously.

[Tidewater_Wave]

46% baby!

[J. J.]

How many more times must JJ be proven wrong before people stop taking him seriously?

We can look at the first 3-4 pages of this thread and see how wrong everyone else was.