The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:05:04 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread (search mode)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 58
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1205747 times)
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #125 on: June 18, 2009, 12:31:22 AM »

Do you think ND, SD, MT, CO will lean GOP anytime soon?

CO? I am surprised that Colorado is so close as it is. The poll is old.

SD? The latest poll (and it is old) indicated that Obama had about a 60% approval rating in the state.

ND? No poll, but I assume that it goes with its southern neighbor.

MT? No poll yet, but I figure that Montana -- which was close in 2008 -- is more likely to go D than either Dakota.

Bonuses:

AZ? I am surprised that it seems to be for a "generic Republican".

UT? I call it a leaner for the GOP because of its history even with a positive poll for Obama.

ID? WY? No poll, so I go on the 2008 election.

Nebraska:

NE-01? I'm going with NE-02 on that one as a clue. No poll.

NE-02? There is a poll out, and Obama had a huge favorable rating.

NE-03? Arguably the most conservative electoral vote or set of votes up for grabs in  an election

NE- at large? Practically a toss-up.   
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #126 on: June 19, 2009, 09:18:22 AM »
« Edited: June 19, 2009, 09:24:33 AM by pbrower2a »

One more state finally polled:



Yawn! It's Hawaii. No big surprise there. Don't wake me up for Vermont, Maine, DC, or Maryland.


(White is an exact tie, and Kansas is a huge surprise!)




Key:

GOP wins by 10% or more
GOP wins 5-9%
GOP wins up to 5%
tossup
Obama wins up to 5%
Obama wins 5-9%
Obama wins 10% or more


Because of Kentucky I am changing Arkansas to "Lean GOP".

 
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #127 on: June 19, 2009, 10:47:40 AM »
« Edited: June 20, 2009, 03:26:39 PM by pbrower2a »

Maine added:




Eight states (VT, MD, MS, MT, ND, ID, WY, AK) and DC still unpolled, one only partially polled (NE), but the partial poll is interesting.  I assume that Maine's two congressional districts are fairly even, but if they aren't then one is 55% and the other is 65% or something like that.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #128 on: June 21, 2009, 08:52:26 AM »

Rasmussen 21 June 2009:

Approve 53% (-1)

Disapprove 46% (-)

Six months into to the job, is the honeymoon over?

It's over. That approval is now very close to the results of the 2008 Presidential election. Such will be adequate in 2012.

It could be the mess in Iran; the GOP finally has something to capitalize upon. As the #1 Diplomat, the President can't stir up trouble, but the Opposition Party can get away with far more stridency.  That's how democracy works.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #129 on: June 21, 2009, 12:00:24 PM »

Rasmussen 21 June 2009:

Approve 53% (-1)

Disapprove 46% (-)

Six months into to the job, is the honeymoon over?

It's over. That approval is now very close to the results of the 2008 Presidential election. Such will be adequate in 2012.

It could be the mess in Iran; the GOP finally has something to capitalize upon. As the #1 Diplomat, the President can't stir up trouble, but the Opposition Party can get away with far more stridency.  That's how democracy works.

I'm not sure if it's Iran. Rasmussen released polling data on Friday:

Link

Has President Obama been too aggressive in supporting the reformers in Iran, not agressive enough, of has the response been about right?

Too aggressive: 9%
Not agressive enough: 35%
About right: 43%
Not sure: 14%

I think that Iran is the first test in which the GOP has a chance as the Outsiders to be more aggressive than the President and get away with it. Those who don't have direct responsibilities for the failure of international policy can get away with much that that the Party in power can't. Obama must be more cautious, and the GOP can get with sharper expressions of solidarity with Iranian revolutionaries (and it is a revolution).  Obama has other concerns: what do Turkish, Pakistani, or Saudi leadership think? How does this influence events in Iraq and Afghanistan? Turkey, Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan all have borders with Iran, and Saudi Arabia is a near-neighbor. GOP leadership has no such concerns, having more pressing ones (namely, revival of its political chances in 2010 and 2012). Such is politics, and the GOP isn't going to roll over and play dead.  

In the short term this is a no-win situation for Obama in domestic, partisan politics.  But that's not the end of the story. It can be an unmitigated disaster for America should an anti-American government successfully crack down on a revolution to which the President has given verbal support. Obama has little to gain in the event of a successful revolution in Iran that makes Iran less hostile to the US. Of course that is short term. Long-term damage arises from a crackdown on a revolution with the establishment of rule more hostile to the United States and that decides to support anti-American violence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The long-term effects of a pro-American or less-hostile Iranian government offer much potential for good for Obama, and in that case he gets the credit for diplomatic measures that cut off support for anti-American violence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

... I am ready for the Obama Administration to be judged on its achievements more than upon promises. Isn't everyone? So far he has gone for comparatively-easy victories and gestures, which makes much more sense than putting everything on the line early.  
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #130 on: June 22, 2009, 02:28:24 AM »
« Edited: June 22, 2009, 11:37:22 AM by pbrower2a »

Response to late polls:

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #131 on: June 22, 2009, 03:36:22 PM »


Interactive polls -- no controls -- no value.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #132 on: June 24, 2009, 01:04:55 AM »
« Edited: June 24, 2009, 11:54:45 AM by pbrower2a »

Better than I could have thought for Obama in Idaho -- one more state shows where it stands:



Very good for a state that gave John McCain almost a 30% margin.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #133 on: June 24, 2009, 12:02:39 PM »

Look at all that yellow, it looks beautiful! LOL

How to really show some yellow:

1. Show honest proportions for Alaska.

2. Poll Alaska.

3. Poll some more Southern states again (and Mississippi for the first time).

Of course, Alaska has fewer electoral votes than Massachusetts, so showing Alaska with the right proportion of area would be a big distortion of political reality.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #134 on: June 24, 2009, 12:11:56 PM »

wtf Nevada?

The rest are failed states, but Nevada?

Obama suddenly lurched wildly for Obama in October due to the real estate meltdown and subprime lending mess. It could also be that a lot of Obama's paid campaign staffers from California changed their legal residence so that they could vote in Nevada in 2008. Perfectly legal, and many of them could have moved back to California. Add to that, I would not be surprised if many who lost their houses (a heavily Democratic population)  in Las Vegas moved elsewhere.

... In any event, the poll of Nevada has a "fair" category, so try to figure what that means.

Of course the poll for Idaho is a surprise. Nobody expected Idaho to ever give anywhere near a 50/50 divide of approval and disapproval. The state won't vote for Obama except in a landslide reminiscent of LBJ in 1964 or Reagan in 1984. But that Idaho could be close at this point suggests big trouble for the GOP.



 
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #135 on: June 24, 2009, 05:33:03 PM »
« Edited: June 24, 2009, 05:47:04 PM by pbrower2a »

Of course the poll for Idaho is a surprise. Nobody expected Idaho to ever give anywhere near a 50/50 divide of approval and disapproval. The state won't vote for Obama except in a landslide reminiscent of LBJ in 1964 or Reagan in 1984. But that Idaho could be close at this point suggests big trouble for the GOP.

You're suggesting that Idaho could be close?

lol

Disapproval is larger than approval. But it's consistent with a poll in Utah a few months back. Obama just might not lose Idaho by a large double-digit margin in 2012.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #136 on: June 24, 2009, 05:38:56 PM »



New polls, some weird.



Go figure. Who is the Texas Lyceum? How could anyone poll a 68% approval rating for Obama in Texas when he slips below 50% in Florida?   
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #137 on: June 25, 2009, 08:01:11 PM »
« Edited: June 26, 2009, 05:24:39 PM by pbrower2a »

I modified the Nevada poll to give preference to a "favorable/unfavorable" rating.



Current projection, and oh can it change!



Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #138 on: June 26, 2009, 12:54:18 AM »

South Dakota has been polled, and North Dakota and Montana ordinarily move with it. 
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #139 on: June 29, 2009, 10:19:55 AM »



Pbrower2a: You are the biggest hack on this entire website.  Utah going blue?  475 EV Obama landslide based on approval ratings?  You then try to use arguments 'well NOBODY KNEW INDIANA WOULD GO BLUE AND IT DID SEE!?'

Dude just post the approvals and cut the weak biased analyses.  You want to analyze politics in this nation?  Do it from an independent point of view-that means stop saying stupid stuff about Utah and how Obama's got it all locked up for 2012 (this is still 2009, right?).  Yeah, the President looks good for 2012 but...Texas?  UTAH?!  Give it a rest man.

On a final note, isn't it funny that my username has Republican in it but I have yet to go on any huge rants against Obama or devote multiple maps to my insane red state theories?  Hmmm.  I do notice this section of the forum attracts diehard Obama supporters who disguise their fascinations as pure analyses.

1. Hack? Hardly. I state my assumptions. I recognize that all polls have flaws. Much can change between now and November 2012. The election will be a test of how well Obama performs as President. If he proves incompetent, corrupt, or irrelevant he will be defeated in 2012.

2. I expect extreme partisans of the Right to dislike him. Some people will never vote for any any Democratic nominee; some will never vote for any Republican nominee. Moderates decide who wins and who doesn't. We have three distinct populations of voters in America: left-leaning Democrats, right-leaning Republicans, and the moderates who hold the balance of power in Presidential politics.

3. I recognize any possibility of Obama winning Utah or Texas as a fringe possibility. The LDS Church creates a social and political ethos -- oddly, a theocratic welfare state that makes a large federal role in government activity irrelevant. Utah is going to vote for the Republican nominee except under one circumstance: that the GOP nominee shows disrespect for the LDS Church. Mormons in Utah don't need the Democratic Party except as a protest vote against some Republicans that members perceive as nutty (Goldwater 1964) or someone who offends Mormon sensibilities.  Huckabee has said some very nasty things about Mormonism, but he has plenty of time in which to make amends. It's up to him to make those amends.

Of course Mitt Romney wins Utah by a huge margin against Obama under any circumstances, even if Obama has a 60+% approval rating in Utah in 2012. I have Utah shown as "weak generic GOP" because of an old poll that suggested that Obama had a slight positive rating a couple months ago.
 
Big Oil and farm-and-ranch interests have unusual influence in Texas politics that push it toward the conservative side of the political spectrum despite demographics that make it more like California than like Alabama even if it has recently voted more like Alabama than like California. The State is hard to place in any region or even to describe as a region in its own right.   No state is a good analogue for Texas statewide politics. I have the model of "Kansas grafted onto Florida" because parts of Texas are much like Kansas in politics and parts are more like Florida.  

Texas goes to Obama only in a landslide. Obama would have to pick up everything that he won in 2008 and at the least flip Missouri, Georgia, and Arizona to get a chance to win Texas. Such are 70 electoral votes in those four states alone; 365+70 = 435, which is close to an Eisenhower-scale victory. That's without winning over Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky, which together are about as big as Texas in electoral votes and generally move together.  I have suggested that Texas goes for Obama only if Florida goes for him by at least 8%. Texas is absolutely not a lock for the GOP.

My current projection of Texas as a toss-up is based on a poll that looks like an outlier.  The same role that keeps me from projecting Arizona as a tossup (most recent poll) forces me to consider Texas at least a toss-up.

4. I did see Indiana as a possible pickup for the Democrats as soon as Obama was the Democratic nominee. Obama got lots of free media access in Indiana because about a third of the state is in or feeds into an Illinois TV market (northwest Indiana, Terre Haute, Evansville); fully a half are in the Chicago newspaper and radio markets (South Bend - Elkhart, maybe Indianapolis). Obama got much attention in Indiana, all positive. The Indiana economy  that seemed to be rural enough to weather economic vicissitudes that neighboring Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio feel hard was getting hit hard. Democratic nominees don't ordinarily campaign much in Indiana -- and Obama did. Despite the rural image of Indiana it is more urban than it looks; its population is heavily concentrated in a few medium-to-large cities, and Obama had a campaign style well suited to urban campaigning.

5. Political culture matters greatly. I see a bunch of states that Mike Huckabee wins because those states are perfect fits for successful politicians from Arkansas. States that voted for Bill Clinton but against Obama by huge margins will vote for Mike Huckabee. Romney probably loses them because he is the d@mnyankee politician that they don't know. Forget race as an explanation; Tennessee came close to voting for Harold Ford in 2006.

6. Beyond any question, the GOP has shown no sign of cutting into the Blue Firewall of states that haven't voted for any GOP nominee since 1992. Such states accounted for 248 electoral votes in 2008 and probably 240 in 2012. Add Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico that have voted only once for a GOP nominee and one has about 260 electoral votes, leaving little room for any GOP victory in 2012. All of those states voted for Obama by large margins (9%+)... which means that the GOP has to win just about everything else to win in 2012.  The deep red colors on my map largely show that.

The GOP has been losing New England, the West Coast, and much of the Midwest badly. It's in part the rural/urban divide; it's also that the Religious Right never got a strong hold in those regions. It's not enough for a Republican hack to say that "these regions will come to their senses and turn against tax-and-spend Democrats". The GOP has failed to hold onto middle-class suburbanites who used to show more concern about taxes than about public services. Suburbia now has big-city problems, and much of the middle class is government employees (teachers, cops, firefighters). Big Business used to succeed at telling employees that their prosperity depended upon the prosperity of the companies that they worked for, but in the last two decades and especially this decade employees of Big Business know that their continued employment depends more upon the caprice of some executive who might get a fat bonus for a mass firing of staff.

7. Nobody knows how much campaigning Obama will do. Nobody knows who his opponent will be. Both will matter in the electoral count.

8. The difference between Obama winning 270 electoral votes in 2012 and 450 electoral votes is ultimately a quibble. He will be no more the 44th President of the United States in a second term whether he picks up the "Blue Firewall + Virginia" or makes electoral inroads into a bunch of states that he lost by huge margins in 2008. In view of the conduct of the last three Presidents to win re-election by landslides (Reagan, Nixon, LBJ), I'm not sure that an Obama landslide that bloats his ego would be good for America. Eisenhower kept his head on straight, but Obama is not an Eisenhower-like leader.  
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #140 on: June 29, 2009, 06:09:29 PM »

But he continues to make the same assumption that states that give Obama a net approval will ultimately vote for him. Candidates have lost states even if the state approves of their job. The most recent example was Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island, who lost reelection despite having something like a 66% approval rating.

Just because Utah gives Obama a net positive approval rating does in no way mean he will win the state, or make it close.

I concur on Lincoln Chaffee. His defeat in the 2006 Senatorial election was a freakish event.  He lost his Senate seat because of an odd circumstance: the extreme unpopularity of his political party in Rhode Island in 2006. In 2012 Obama might get positive approval ratings in a bunch of states that voted strongly against him in 2008, and the Bradley effect may strike even without any obvious signs. Should 2012 polls suggest that Obama might have a 55% approval rating in such a state as Louisiana and the Republican nominee be Sarah Palin, then I expect Obama to lose Louisiana. The Bradley effect is more likely to operate in Louisiana than in Michigan.

It is possible that Obama could have an approval rating of 60% in Utah in 2012 and lose the state by a wide margin should Mitt Romney be the GOP nominee. Likewise it is imaginable that Obama could have a similar approval rating in Arkansas and lose the state to Mike Huckabee. Should the GOP nominee offer a convincing repudiation of his anti-Mormon statements, he wins Utah.  

Don't you accept that it would be a good thing that if some political candidates takes swipes at the people of a State because of their ethnicity or religion that he should lose that state? If a Democratic nominee were to change the "N" to a "J" for the largest city in the United States and its own state that he should  lose a bunch of states in which such is generally considered objectionable? I need not be a Jew to find Jew-baiting intolerable. Utah is more Mormon than New York is Jewish (New York City is more Catholic than Jewish, by the way).

But note well; there are a lot of states that Obama doesn't have to win to get re-elected so long as he holds onto the Blue Firewall If one accepts the Blue Firewall as all states that haven't voted for a Republican nominee more than once since 1992, inclusive, and wins one of Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Arizona, Indiana, or Missouri -- or Colorado and one of Nevada or Montana -- then Obama wins re-election. He would have to be catastrophically inept as President to lose anything in the Blue Firewall.  (I make an allowance for re-apportionment of members of the House of Representatives as the result of the 2010 Census).  
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #141 on: June 29, 2009, 06:33:09 PM »



New polls, some weird.



Go figure. Who is the Texas Lyceum? How could anyone poll a 68% approval rating for Obama in Texas when he slips below 50% in Florida?   


According to Obama's approval ratings map, this is the 2012 election map I came up with an average Republican opponent.  It's only speculation.

The closer to dark green, Obama wins that state.  Light green and yellow, Republicans win that.

You have to admit, this map is pretty fair according to the polls.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #142 on: June 29, 2009, 06:59:30 PM »

Here's what I think will happen:




Strong Republican win (10% +)
Weak  Republican win (5-9.9%)
Bare    Republican win (under 5%)
No tossups shown
Bare    Obama win  (under 5%)
Weak  Obama win  (5-9.9%)
Strong Obama win  (10% +)


This is a cautious prediction based on assumptions that:

1. Demographic change will be enough to flip Missouri and solidify Obama 's 2008 wins in Indiana and North Carolina

2. Obama maxed out support in Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina in 2008 -- and really, the Blue Firewall.

3. The absence of a candidate from Arizona takes away the Favorite Son effect

4. Obama makes gains in the South and Plains, but not enough to win anything other than Missouri.

5. Obama meets expectations of most who voted for him but doesn't convince enough of those who voted against him to change their minds enough to flip any state, except in Arizona (again, no Favorite Son effect will be active there) .

6. The GOP nominee has no unusual weaknesses in any region that Obama lost. 

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #143 on: June 29, 2009, 10:03:41 PM »
« Edited: July 01, 2009, 11:20:28 AM by pbrower2a »

We need to stop acting like the states that haven't voted Republican since the 1980s provide some sort of structural advantage to Obama. The Democrats have won those states because Republican national margins have been nonexistent to narrow.

So how do you suggest that the GOP can win back the states that the GOP hasn't won since the 1980's? Look at some of the margins of Obama victories in 2008:


California            24%
Massachusetts   27%
New York            26% 
Rhode Island      27%
Connecticut        22%
Vermont             37%
Maryland            25%
Maine                 17%
Michigan             17%
Oregon               16%
Washington        17%
Wisconsin           14%
Minnesota           11%
New Jersey         16%
Pennsylvania      10%


I haven't mentioned Illinois, Hawaii, or Delaware out of fairness as those are arguable home states of the President and Vice-President.

As for those that have voted once for a GOP nominee for President since 1988, Iowa and New Hampshire both went for Obama by 9% and New Mexico went by 15%.  There were no squeakers among those. So the GOP nominee had to win just about everything else to win in 2008 just as Dubya succeeded at in 2000 and 2004 (maybe "with a little help of his friends" like Katharine Harris and Kenneth Blackwell).

Obama had that working for him in the late summer of 2008: 264 electoral votes. Winning all states that hadn't voted for a GOP Presidential nominee in at least twenty years wasn't enough to win, but it put the 2008 GOP nominee in the position in which he couldn't lose anything else. At that point, Nevada was enough to put the final vote into a tiebreaker that the Democrats could expect to win. A bunch of states were close, and Obama needed only one with which to win the election outright: Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Georgia, and Florida. A Presidential campaign reasonably certain of 264 electoral votes had 511 ways in which to win and one in which to lose.  That's mathematics -- not politics. You can argue with my politics any time that you want, but math has no partisan bias. Make the right promises, and you win one of the states you are seeking.

Here's one way of looking at the voting history in a state:

Map:

PRESIDENTIAL VOTING HISTORY



Obama wins (last GOP nominee wins):

near-black: 1972 (MN) or never (DC) Nixon*
deep red: 1984   Reagan
medium red: 1988    GHWB
pink: 2000 or 2004  GWB won once
beige: 2004  GWB won twice


McCain wins (last Democratic win):

light blue: 1992 or 1996 Clinton
blue: 1976  Carter
deep blue: 1964 LBJ
 

Note that this is not a prediction of how any state will vote in 2012. For example, Obama has a much better chance of winning North Dakota than of winning Arkansas, about as much chance of winning Missouri as of winning Indiana, and more chance of losing Minnesota than California.

Any state in beige will be a legitimate swing state in 2012, and any state in pale blue is a swing state under the right circumstances. Those in any shade of red (including near-black as well as pink) isn't -- and those states will account for about 260 electoral votes in 2012.  In essence the GOP nominee can win only if getting everything in beige and any shade of blue.



 
 
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #144 on: June 29, 2009, 11:05:42 PM »

Why is Hawaii mentioned?

Hawaii is not Obama's home state.

He was born there.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #145 on: June 30, 2009, 09:22:45 AM »

So how do you suggest that the GOP can win back the states that the GOP hasn't won since the 1980's?

California and Vermont are just waiting for a true conservative to win the Republican nomination, hack.

Wasn't John McCain a genuine conservative? Bob Dole? George H.W. Bush in 1992?

The consistencies of the Republican Party look increasingly like those that typically support fascist movements: financiers, industrialists, big landowners, racists, snobs, religious bigots, and ultra-nationalists.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #146 on: June 30, 2009, 08:38:58 PM »

Why is Hawaii mentioned?

Hawaii is not Obama's home state.

He was born there.

Biden was born in Pennsylvania, yet Pennsylvania was not mentioned as one of the home states.

The VP doesn't have the pull that the President has. That both Biden and Palin came from States with only three electoral votes suggests that they were selected for ideological purposes more than the ability to "deliver" a state. McCain could have selected well-known and well-respected Dick Lugar to "deliver" Indiana or George Voinovich to "deliver" Ohio, which were both close -- and both of which McCain lost. 

Let's take a good look at earlier VP nominees. John Edwards couldn't deliver North Carolina or any other Southern state in 2004, but Obama could win North Carolina in 2008. Go figure. al Gore picked Joe Lieberman  not so much to win Connecticut (a foregone conclusion) as to win the Jewish vote in critical states, particularly Florida or perhaps Ohio. He delivered neither, and Gore lost. Dick Cheney changed his legal residence to Wyoming, with three electoral votes never in doubt.  Such accounts for elections for Dubya.

1988-1996?  Bob Dole selected Jack Kemp with little chance of Kemp delivering New York State and 30+ electoral votes. Kemp was from the wrong part of the state, and even if he was well respected in New York, he couldn't prevent a Clinton landslide. Bill Clinton, an Arkansas politician, chose a running mate from Tennessee -- a state that generally travels politically with Arkansas due to similar demographics. Clinton chose Gore probably more for ideological compatibility than the ability to deliver what looked like a critical State (let us say Pennsylvania). Clinton/Gore did quite well, even against an incumbent President generally well-respected.  GHWB chose Dan Quayle as VP for reasons other than delivering a shaky state (Indiana was then a rock-solid GOP preserve). Whatever questions anyone could have had about Dan Quayle, one had few about Mike Dukakis' choice for VP, the well-regarded Lloyd Bentsen, Senator from Texas. Problem: GHWB was also connected to Texas, demonstrating the comparative significance of having a Presidential candidate from a State over a VP candidate from the state. GHWB won Texas, which as late as 1980 voted more than the national average for Jimmy Carter.

Not much need be said of the elections involving Ronald Reagan, so I will say little. 1976? Carter picked Walter Mondale, Senator from a State with no tendency to go Republican; Ford picked Bob Dole, a Senator from a small state unlikely to go Democratic. Ho hum.

1960-1972? Call it the Nixon era if you wish, containing one near-miss of Nixon and his two elections. Both Kennedy and Nixon sought geographic balance and draw your own conclusions. You can say little about an electoral blowout in 1964. 1968? Humphrey chose a fellow Yankee (Muskie); Nixon got Spiro T. Agnew. 1972? 1964 in reverse.   

 
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #147 on: July 01, 2009, 01:40:41 PM »

New polls today:



New York State comes down to Earth to some extent.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #148 on: July 01, 2009, 02:44:29 PM »



Hmmmm...... interesting map. I was hoping for a Maryland or Vermont poll.

Funny! I was interested more in Mississippi, Montana, and North Dakota.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


« Reply #149 on: July 08, 2009, 10:28:01 PM »

New polls today:



Obama is slipping some -- probably because he is out of the country.


Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 58  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.079 seconds with 10 queries.