The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[Sam Spade]

Spade's favorite map creation - this is one of the more important maps I have that says a lot of 2010 (and possibly beyond).  It also says a lot about the Obama power base.

[Sam Spade]

Spade's favorite map creation - this is one of the more important maps I have that says a lot of 2010 (and possibly beyond).  It also says a lot about the Obama power base.

I think you've out Sam Spade'd yourself on this one.

 

The Key:

1st Part:  Rasmussen 3-poll average of approvals in each state measured against Rasmussen-derived national average from the 3-poll average state polls (i.e. national average is 47-52, Ohio 3-poll average is 46-53, so R+2)

MEASURED AGAINST

2nd Part:  2004 Bush-Kerry, 2008 McCain-Obama, 2004-2008 Average.
a) If more Republican than all three, then Solid Blue. (i.e. Michigan = D+1, with 2004 = D+6, 2008 = D+9, Average = D+7)
b) If more Republican than 2004-2008 Average, but less Republican than 2004 or 2008, then Light Blue.  (i.e. Nevada = D+1, with 2004 = D+1, 2008 = D+5, Average = D+3)
c) If equal to 2004-2008 Average = Green (i.e. Ohio = R+2, 2004/2008 Average = R+2)
d) If more Democratic than 2004-2008 Average, but less Republican than 2004 or 2008, then Light Red. (i.e. Oregon = D+9, with 2004 = D+7, 2008 = D+10, Average = D+7)
e) If more Democratic than all three, then Solid Red. (i.e. California = D+18, with 2004 = D+13, 2008 = D+17, Average = D+15)

[Sam Spade]

This is the time of year when the most approval ratings hit - and now pbrower goes off to hide.  what a surprise.

[Sam Spade]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47%, +1.

Disapprove 52%, -1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 29%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 41%, u.

Very stable, but Obama has had a slight medium term improvement.

The state polls don't reflect any improvement, btw, but then again, they always said approval numbers of 46-47 vs. 52-53 disapprove, even last month.

[Sam Spade]

Or maybe the electorate has shifted since then.

I recognize your narrative for this November will be that the reason why the Democrat Party lost was because Democrats didn't show up but the reality may very well be that there are fewer Democrats as the country has shifted since 2008.

Thailand certainly has shifted since the fall of Abhisit, but that's benefited the Democrats, not hurt them.

     I'm personally curious as to why Tender Branson would care enough to be spinning the loss of the Democrat Party. Maybe he has family in Thailand or something.

My post has nothing to do with "spinning the 2010 election".

It´s more about the 2012 election. Just because this year there are fewer Democrats turning out, it doesn´t mean at all that the electorate has shifted in the last 2 years. To the contrary, there has almost been no change in party identification in the last 2 years, check some of the registration figures below. Democrats are just sitting it out this year, but there´s a good enough chance that once the Republican Presidential joke is coming out of the primary, they will turn out en masse again. It´s the silent majority and they will be reactivated by the Obama campaign in Mid-2012.

As for the registration numbers:

California

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/60day-gen-10/hist-reg-stats.pdf

(The number of Republicans there has dropped to record lows)

In Florida, Democrats still have a 600.000 advantage over the Republicans, about the same as it was in 2008.

And so on ...

There´s no indicator that the registered electorate has changed the way for example Rasmussen wants to tell us it has ...

And there 's no real indicator which says that the registered electorate in any way follows the identifying electorate - party ID in the US tends to be a rather strange and fluid thing.

Besides, Rasmussen's larger partisan trends merely says that any shifts have occurred from less Democratic ID and more Independent ID, not more Republican ID.

[Sam Spade]

Are we no longer tracking state polling here?

I am.  pbrower2a just gave up because he doesn't like the results.

[Sam Spade]

Are we no longer tracking state polling here?

I am.  pbrower2a just gave up because he doesn't like the results.

Didn't he say the source for his polls was now charging money, so he had to quit?

     Yes, Rasmussen now only releases state-by-state approval polls to its premium members.

There are plenty of approval polls coming out that are not Rasmussen.  They just don't show the results he wants.

[Sam Spade]

Are we no longer tracking state polling here?

I am.  pbrower2a just gave up because he doesn't like the results.

Didn't he say the source for his polls was now charging money, so he had to quit?

     Yes, Rasmussen now only releases state-by-state approval polls to its premium members.

That sucks.  I wonder who would pay just for poll data (unless that was related to your job)?

     Sam Spade, evidently.

In 2008, I did the same thing - paid the last couple of months for premium data and then dropped the subscription after the election.

[Sam Spade]

Are we no longer tracking state polling here?

I am.  pbrower2a just gave up because he doesn't like the results.

Didn't he say the source for his polls was now charging money, so he had to quit?

     Yes, Rasmussen now only releases state-by-state approval polls to its premium members.

There are plenty of approval polls coming out that are not Rasmussen.  They just don't show the results he wants.

IMO, Rasmussen is one of the most reputable polling sources there is.  What are you using?

Let's see - Quinnipiac always includes approval.  So does PPP.  As noticed, so does CNN/Time now (didn't before).  So does Suffolk in all states outside MA.  So does the Fox News/Rasmussen.  I'm missing some others, but you get my drift.

[Sam Spade]

I see about as much going on in the poll internals as I saw when folks were talking about a material Obama rise.

In other words, yawn...

[Sam Spade]

If this is real movement, it is certainly because of Egypt.

[Sam Spade]

He has handled Egypt pretty well up to now, so I don't see why his numbers would slide due to it. I guess Americans just like interventionist foreign policy.

It's one of those situations of a no win situation for any President.


Also, Obama has a penchant for losing ground whenever a foreign crisis erupts going back to the Georgia invasion by Russia.

The Georgia invasion was during the Bush administration. (mid-2008)

Also, Obama's handling of Egypt has been beyond incompetent.  That being said, if this is a change in approval of Obama, it happened when the major event was Mubarek/Army pushback and Obama's open call for regime change in Egypt.  Not that this is any proof of any change, of course.  Got to wait a couple of weeks.

[Sam Spade]

Also, Obama's handling of Egypt has been beyond incompetent. 

Crushing the protests wouldn't have been competent. Especially since we were cool with the one in Tunisia. That would not look good.

There are other solutions than supporting regime change and supporting the crushing of the protests.

[Sam Spade]

Also, Obama's handling of Egypt has been beyond incompetent. 

Crushing the protests wouldn't have been competent. Especially since we were cool with the one in Tunisia. That would not look good.

There are other solutions than supporting regime change and supporting the crushing of the protests.

Such as?

Such as shutting up, like he did with the protests in Iran.

[Sam Spade]

Rasmussen = hard-weighted
Gallup = not weighted

And there you have it.  Though really the top of the bounce will likely be one week from the event, so wait.

Anyone listening to CBS polling, Newsweek polling or one-day polling needs to be banned from this forum immediately.