The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[Tidewater_Wave]

I still don't understand why in 2012 people are looking anywhere else besides Rasmussen. They predicted 50/50 correctly in 2004 and only missed 4 states in 2008. Each election since their existence in 2003 they have been the most accurate. I know warm and fuzzy hope is nice for those who don't lead in polls, but let's grow up and be serious. Let's get real and seek what has been the standard bearer in recent elections. Most other polling places have lost their ways or become outdated.

[Nagas]

I still don't understand why in 2012 people are looking anywhere else besides Rasmussen. They predicted 50/50 correctly in 2004 and only missed 4 states in 2008. Each election since their existence in 2003 they have been the most accurate. I know warm and fuzzy hope is nice for those who don't lead in polls, but let's grow up and be serious. Let's get real and seek what has been the standard bearer in recent elections. Most other polling places have lost their ways or become outdated.

Rasmussen was the worst pollster of the 2010 midterms.

[J. J.]

I still don't understand why in 2012 people are looking anywhere else besides Rasmussen. They predicted 50/50 correctly in 2004 and only missed 4 states in 2008. Each election since their existence in 2003 they have been the most accurate. I know warm and fuzzy hope is nice for those who don't lead in polls, but let's grow up and be serious. Let's get real and seek what has been the standard bearer in recent elections. Most other polling places have lost their ways or become outdated.

Rasmussen was the worst pollster of the 2010 midterms.

But very good nationally.

Rasmussen, however, simply does not have the available data for historic comparisons.

[Tidewater_Wave]

I still don't understand why in 2012 people are looking anywhere else besides Rasmussen. They predicted 50/50 correctly in 2004 and only missed 4 states in 2008. Each election since their existence in 2003 they have been the most accurate. I know warm and fuzzy hope is nice for those who don't lead in polls, but let's grow up and be serious. Let's get real and seek what has been the standard bearer in recent elections. Most other polling places have lost their ways or become outdated.

Rasmussen was the worst pollster of the 2010 midterms.

No the tea party senate candidates lost steam and momentum at the end and so the numbers from the entire year as a whole seemed off. The final results and final polling were closer. Midterm Elections are tougher to predict to begin with because of the unpredictable turnout. What do you mean by worst?

[Oakvale]

What do you mean by worst?

...the least accurate?

[Nagas]

I still don't understand why in 2012 people are looking anywhere else besides Rasmussen. They predicted 50/50 correctly in 2004 and only missed 4 states in 2008. Each election since their existence in 2003 they have been the most accurate. I know warm and fuzzy hope is nice for those who don't lead in polls, but let's grow up and be serious. Let's get real and seek what has been the standard bearer in recent elections. Most other polling places have lost their ways or become outdated.

Rasmussen was the worst pollster of the 2010 midterms.

No the tea party senate candidates lost steam and momentum at the end and so the numbers from the entire year as a whole seemed off. The final results and final polling were closer. Midterm Elections are tougher to predict to begin with because of the unpredictable turnout. What do you mean by worst?

When polling numbers were compared to the actual result, Rasmussen had the worst average error and a heavy bias toward GOP candidates in the midterms. It was not an issue of "losing steam." Rasmussen missed Hawaii by a margin of 40 points.

Nate Silver composed a good piece here. We also had an Atlas member table all of the Rasmussen polls against the final results and again, there was a large deviation.

Time will tell to see if he's back on the ball on 2012.

[Tidewater_Wave]

What do you mean by worst?

...the least accurate?

They've been much more accurate in both presidential elections since their existence and seem to be the most modern source. Maybe they were off in 2010 because I remember expecting 50-53 senate seats.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 46%, u.

Disapprove 53%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 27%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at  42%, +1.

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

[True Federalist]

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.

J.J. you still have not given any creditable reason why a 1948 Gallup poll should be more comparable to a 2012 Gallup poll than to a 2012 Rasmussen poll.

It's like saying a 1948 Ford F-1 pickup truck has more in common with a 2012 Ford F-150 than a 2012 Toyota Tundra, when the only thing an F-1 and an F-150  can be shown to have in common is the name plate.

[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.

J.J. you still have not given any creditable reason why a 1948 Gallup poll should be more comparable to a 2012 Gallup poll than to a 2012 Rasmussen poll.

It's like saying a 1948 Ford F-1 pickup truck has more in common with a 2012 Ford F-150 than a 2012 Toyota Tundra, when the only thing an F-1 and an F-150  can be shown to have in common is the name plate.

As pointed out, it is still the only one we have.  Gallup is, IIRC, not using robots. 

[J. J.]

It doesn't look like Gallup posted today.

[Tender Branson]

Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll:

50% Approve
45% Disapprove

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45%, -1.

Disapprove 54%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, -2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at  43%, +1.

It just could be a bad sample.

[J. J.]

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

Approve:  45%, -3

Disapprove:  48%, +2

It could be a bad sample.

[Tidewater_Wave]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45%, -1.

Disapprove 54%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, -2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at  43%, +1.

It just could be a bad sample.

45% won't win an election. Someone has their work cut out or they'll lose to Romeny, Santorum, the Easter Bunny, or a potato.

[Democratic Hawk]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45%, -1.

Disapprove 54%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, -2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at  43%, +1.

It just could be a bad sample.

45% won't win an election. Someone has their work cut out or they'll lose to Romeny, Santorum, the Easter Bunny, or a potato.

Yet, with 45% approval, the president, in this very same tracking, currently leads all four Republican contenders by margins ranging from 2% (Romney & Paul) and 8% (Gingrich). I'm not too worried given that even in recent weeks, he has occasionally trailed them (bar Gingrich, IIRC)

Of course, it would seem that the stronger the president's approvals the greater the margin by which he leads

[Tidewater_Wave]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45%, -1.

Disapprove 54%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, -2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at  43%, +1.

It just could be a bad sample.

45% won't win an election. Someone has their work cut out or they'll lose to Romeny, Santorum, the Easter Bunny, or a potato.

Yet, with 45% approval, the president, in this very same tracking, currently leads all four Republican contenders by margins between 2 and 8. I'm not too worried given that even in recent weeks, he has occasionally trailed, certainly against Romney, possibly against Santorum

It is Mar.5 and the election is months away. Reagan trailed in both elections and so did Bush. I don't know of a single president in modern times that would lose an election in March of the election year because the public is still unfamiliar with their opponents. I know I'm a Republican and excited about the 45% which makes you mad but please try take into account how undecided voters have actually voted in elections rather than how they're polled on Mar.5, 2012 with the election 8 months away.

[State Comptroller Atkins]

but please try take into account how undecided voters have actually voted in elections

Yeah, they always vote for the non-incumbent. Just ask President Kerry.

[Democratic Hawk]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45%, -1.

Disapprove 54%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, -2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at  43%, +1.

It just could be a bad sample.

45% won't win an election. Someone has their work cut out or they'll lose to Romeny, Santorum, the Easter Bunny, or a potato.

Yet, with 45% approval, the president, in this very same tracking, currently leads all four Republican contenders by margins between 2 and 8. I'm not too worried given that even in recent weeks, he has occasionally trailed, certainly against Romney, possibly against Santorum

It is Mar.5 and the election is months away. Reagan trailed in both elections and so did Bush. I don't know of a single president in modern times that would lose an election in March of the election year because the public is still unfamiliar with their opponents. I know I'm a Republican and excited about the 45% which makes you mad but please try take into account how undecided voters have actually voted in elections rather than how they're polled on Mar.5, 2012 with the election 8 months away.

Much can and will happen between now and Nov. 6, for better, I pray, or worse

[Tidewater_Wave]

but please try take into account how undecided voters have actually voted in elections

Yeah, they always vote for the non-incumbent. Just ask President Kerry.

That they did! Bush won the undecided voters who approved of his job as president and Kerry won the ones who did not approve. Fortunately for Bush his approval rating was 54% on election night and didn't even need that to get elected. Clinton was at 54% as well I believe and got just over 48 or 49%. The undecideds went for Perot and Dole. With a 45% approval rating though, Obama is much less likely to win than Bush in 2004 who was in the low 50's.

[ajb]

Some sample approval ratings for George W. Bush in 2004:

3/1-7/04    TIPP/IBD/CSM    44    46
3/9-11/04    Amer. Res. Group    45    48    
3/29-4/3/04    TIPP/IBD/CSM    43    48
4/1-4/04    Pew    43    47    
4/8-9/04    Newsweek    41    55
4/19-5/12/04    Pew    44    44
5/3-4/04    Pew    44    48
5/3-6/04    Amer. Res. Group    45    49
5/11/04    CBS    44    49
5/13-14/04    Newsweek    42    52
5/18-24/04    Quinnipiac University    45    50
5/20-23/04    CBS    41    52

And so on. Bush had a 44-48 approval rating as late as Oct. 15 in the Pew and CBS/NYT polls.

http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Bush#.T1UnRvVXOuI

[State Comptroller Atkins]

Some sample approval ratings for George W. Bush in 2004:

3/1-7/04    TIPP/IBD/CSM    44    46
3/9-11/04    Amer. Res. Group    45    48    
3/29-4/3/04    TIPP/IBD/CSM    43    48
4/1-4/04    Pew    43    47    
4/8-9/04    Newsweek    41    55
4/19-5/12/04    Pew    44    44
5/3-4/04    Pew    44    48
5/3-6/04    Amer. Res. Group    45    49
5/11/04    CBS    44    49
5/13-14/04    Newsweek    42    52
5/18-24/04    Quinnipiac University    45    50
5/20-23/04    CBS    41    52

And so on. Bush had a 44-48 approval rating as late as Oct. 15 in the Pew and CBS/NYT polls.

http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Bush#.T1UnRvVXOuI

Yeah, Tidewater_Wave's theory only works if you choose to view March as a benchmark. In May of 2004, Bush's approval ratings were almost exactly the same as Obama's current approval ratings.

[J. J.]

Some sample approval ratings for George W. Bush in 2004:

3/1-7/04    TIPP/IBD/CSM    44    46
3/9-11/04    Amer. Res. Group    45    48    
3/29-4/3/04    TIPP/IBD/CSM    43    48
4/1-4/04    Pew    43    47    
4/8-9/04    Newsweek    41    55
4/19-5/12/04    Pew    44    44
5/3-4/04    Pew    44    48
5/3-6/04    Amer. Res. Group    45    49
5/11/04    CBS    44    49
5/13-14/04    Newsweek    42    52
5/18-24/04    Quinnipiac University    45    50
5/20-23/04    CBS    41    52

And so on. Bush had a 44-48 approval rating as late as Oct. 15 in the Pew and CBS/NYT polls.

http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Bush#.T1UnRvVXOuI

Yeah, Tidewater_Wave's theory only works if you choose to view March as a benchmark. In May of 2004, Bush's approval ratings were almost exactly the same as Obama's current approval ratings.

Ah, that's part of the problem.  Obama may not have cratered yet.

[ajb]

but please try take into account how undecided voters have actually voted in elections

Yeah, they always vote for the non-incumbent. Just ask President Kerry.

That they did! Bush won the undecided voters who approved of his job as president and Kerry won the ones who did not approve. Fortunately for Bush his approval rating was 54% on election night and didn't even need that to get elected. Clinton was at 54% as well I believe and got just over 48 or 49%. The undecideds went for Perot and Dole. With a 45% approval rating though, Obama is much less likely to win than Bush in 2004 who was in the low 50's.

If you look at the 21 polls the Roper Center has for March 2004 which list approval ratings for George W. Bush, the simple arithmetic mean is 48.6 approval-45.4 disapproval. Obama's approval rating in the last 21 polls in the pollster.com database? 48.6-46.8.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/obama-job-approval#!

[Tidewater_Wave]

Some sample approval ratings for George W. Bush in 2004:

3/1-7/04    TIPP/IBD/CSM    44    46
3/9-11/04    Amer. Res. Group    45    48    
3/29-4/3/04    TIPP/IBD/CSM    43    48
4/1-4/04    Pew    43    47    
4/8-9/04    Newsweek    41    55
4/19-5/12/04    Pew    44    44
5/3-4/04    Pew    44    48
5/3-6/04    Amer. Res. Group    45    49
5/11/04    CBS    44    49
5/13-14/04    Newsweek    42    52
5/18-24/04    Quinnipiac University    45    50
5/20-23/04    CBS    41    52

And so on. Bush had a 44-48 approval rating as late as Oct. 15 in the Pew and CBS/NYT polls.

http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Bush#.T1UnRvVXOuI

Yeah, Tidewater_Wave's theory only works if you choose to view March as a benchmark. In May of 2004, Bush's approval ratings were almost exactly the same as Obama's current approval ratings.

You didn't use Rasmussen. Rasmussen predicted every state right that year. Also, have you ever looked at his approval rating of 54% from the exit polls? Not early exit polls, but actual exit polls. That would be more accurate considering that it deals with actual votes as opposed to polls. Approval ratings don't matter until the night of the election and his was 53-54% based on exit polls. Obama has some jumping up to do.