Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 23, 2020, 12:18:54 pm
News: 2020 U.S. Senate Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 72 73 74 75 76 [77] 78 79 80 81 82 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1026637 times)
Rowan
RowanBrandon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,692


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1900 on: August 17, 2009, 05:32:24 pm »

And as everyone knows Rasmussen's off-year polling is terrible. There is no way Kirk is up by three in Illinois. I could see a tie or a close race but not Kirk leading.

How is a tie really all that different than a 3 point lead when you factor in the MOE?
eh I don't really ever factor in MOE's. There's a difference between a three point lead and a tie for sure though.

Well statistically speaking, they are exactly the same considering Rasmussen's poll has a 3.5% margin of error. But I get your point.
Logged
bgwah
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,832
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1901 on: August 17, 2009, 05:34:23 pm »

YAWN

The state of the economy in 2012 will determine whether or not Obama is re-elected, not the health care reform debate of 2009.
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,647
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1902 on: August 17, 2009, 05:39:27 pm »

YAWN

The state of the economy in 2012 will determine whether or not Obama is re-elected, not the health care reform debate of 2009.
This guy gets it. Still health care will definitley be a factor for the 2010 midterms and 2012.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,943
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1903 on: August 17, 2009, 05:51:06 pm »
« Edited: August 17, 2009, 05:55:53 pm by Re-elect the President »

YAWN

The state of the economy in 2012 will determine whether or not Obama is re-elected, not the health care reform debate of 2009.

I'm more worried about 2010 at this point.  The health care reform debate of 93 was one of the ways Republicans got their "in" leading to their '94 showing. Clinton easily recovered during 95 and 96 leading to his re-election, although (as someone in another thread said earlier) he had the option of pushing the blame on Hillary.

But yeah, if America is no longer in recession and unemployment is down, prepare to be hearing a concession from (which will probably be from) Governor Romney on November 6th 2012.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,734
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1904 on: August 17, 2009, 05:55:05 pm »

Why does everyone conveniently keep forgetting that both Quinnipiac and PPP also have him at 50% nationally?

Look at the spread. 50/42 implies that it is still a majority among those who make a choice. It's a substantial majority at that.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,447
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1905 on: August 17, 2009, 06:15:56 pm »
« Edited: August 18, 2009, 11:04:59 am by Mr. Moderate »

This is a stupid statement on so many levels. Obama is still fairly popular, and is still extremely popular among the base. We have no idea what his approval ratings will be in the next year There are too many things that no one knows about that makes this a dumb statement.

Before blinking on health care reform, Obama was already upside down amongst independents in New Jersey and upside down amongst registered voters in Virginia. And all indications are that things will be getting worse instead of better.

I don't know for sure where his approvals will be even three months from now, but given the last seven months of his administration, I can make a pretty good educated guess.

Update: Corrected for fairness.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,597
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1906 on: August 17, 2009, 07:25:47 pm »

This is a stupid statement on so many levels. Obama is still fairly popular, and is still extremely popular among the base. We have no idea what his approval ratings will be in the next year There are too many things that no one knows about that makes this a dumb statement.

Before blinking on health care reform, Obama was already upside down amongst independents in New Jersey and upside down amongst registered voters in Virginia. And all indications are that things will be getting worse instead of better.

I don't know for sure where his approvals will be even three months from now, but given the last seven months of his administration, I can make a pretty good educated guess.

Still more confidence in this president than I ever had the dogmatoid arthritic who preceded him

Obama is being held to a higher standard. That's how it should be. No Democrat could make an arse of things through bad policy decisions and get a pass four years later. Bush abused the ideological nature of America to the point that he thought he'd never be held accountable - misruled, accordingly, and with near catastrophic consequences

The starting point of the Bush presidency was way prettier than the end point. Why didn't he build on the prosperity of the Clinton era? He was a compassionate conservative alright - and the bigger your wallet, the more compassion he had. Clinton, on the other hand, was fair; just as this president will endeavour to be

Can't be easy being for Obama attempting to seek consensus when so many on the other side remain dogmatically recalcitrant. They just aren't that interested in working with him on the major issues of the day. So invested in him failing, they are itching for the moment to perpetuate more of their own Roll Eyes - and they would, you mark my words
Logged
CJK
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 671
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1907 on: August 17, 2009, 08:23:57 pm »

You keep repeating that over and over again, and it isn't any more convincing than the first time you said it.

The President does not control the economy. Bush and Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with how the economy performed under them.

The only thing I saw Bush get from the fall of 2003 on was an endless parade of attacks against him. Obama is getting beat up by the right, to be sure, but his media protectors are probably giving him an extra 10 points.

Democrats were pretty much invested in Bush's failure, and boy did they hit the jackpot. Why shoulld we expect Republicans to be different?
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 25,005


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1908 on: August 17, 2009, 08:34:37 pm »

Exactly.

After fall 2003.

Up until Sept. 11, 2001, I was mildly indifferent to Bush, but I hoped the economy would go well for reasons not political. After that date, I approved of him and hoped he would succeed. As did most Democrats, which is why the country came together and he had 80, 90 percent approval ratings. After decades of polarizing culture wars, it felt the country had finally come together. Trust in the government was at a high, and people felt we were heading in the right direction. At the helm of this good feeling was our Command in Chief, George W. Bush.

In 2002 and 2003, I saw George W. Bush and the GOP take Sept. 11, and turn it from a national tragedy into a Republican campaign talking point. I saw them use it as a bludgeon to push us into a war in Iraq. Democrats even voted for the war and tried to support Bush. Bush's answer was to portray the Democrats as unpatriotic. Other conservative authors and radio and cable hosts were even worse. The GOP called Democrats "the enemy within" and used hard edged tactics in Congress to govern with an iron fist. Democrats did not turn against Bush until then. From then until the end of his Presidency Bush was the same... the stubborn Presidency of the voters who gave him his own non-existent mandate, while treating the rest of the country as much as a foreign country as possible.

As for the claim that the President does not control the economy, that is only true up to a point. It was the Washington Consensus, the blind faith in the "free market" and the miracles that it could do, and the miracles that financial innovation could do, that inequality and job loss does not matter, that created the crisis, and while both parties and even government regulators were all involved, this belief originated primarily from the Reagan wing of the GOP. It was strengthened under Bush. Under Bush, under these beliefs, people ran up tens of trillions of dollars of fraudulent debts, Bush campaigned under the fraudulent "prosperity" created by these fraudulent debts in 2004, and then in 2008-09 it was dumped on the following President to solve.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,597
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1909 on: August 17, 2009, 09:22:41 pm »

You keep repeating that over and over again, and it isn't any more convincing than the first time you said it.


Well it's there Wink
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,874


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1910 on: August 17, 2009, 09:29:06 pm »

Democrats should have never wanted to win this election.  This has just been a disaster.  Democrats need to start running away from and against Obama like they did to Carter. 

Don't blame the cycle. The economy isn't helping, but the real problem is a leadership vacuum.

Obama has no leadership experience and it shows. Bush may have consistently led us down the wrong path, but at least he could lead.



Bush was able to lead?  Where was he when the economy began falling off a cliff in 2007?
Logged
paul718
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,012


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1911 on: August 17, 2009, 09:47:33 pm »


Still more confidence in this president than I ever had the dogmatoid arthritic who preceded him

Because the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and No Child Left Behind adhered so closely to conservative dogma?


Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bush was able to lead?  Where was he when the economy began falling off a cliff in 2007?

He signed a ridiculous "stimulus" bill.  When the sh**t really hit the fan, he signed the EESA against the will of his own party.  Oh, and he did this with a Congress in opposition.  While he may have made bad decisions, you can't say he wasn't able to lead.
Logged
Lizzzard
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 51,499
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1912 on: August 17, 2009, 11:45:47 pm »

Having Illinois 7 points more Democratic than his national numbers are actually pretty damn consistent.

Yeah, in Rasmussen-World. The poll was conducted Aug. 12, when Obama was at 47/48 nationally. 9% higher approval in IL is exactly where he was on election day, relative to the national result.
Logged
Lizzzard
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 51,499
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1913 on: August 17, 2009, 11:46:53 pm »

Virginia (Washington Post)Sad

57% Approve
41% Disapprove

This Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone August 11-14, 2009, among a random sample of 1,002 adults in the Commonwealth of Virginia including users of both conventional and cellular phones. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_081609.html
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1914 on: August 17, 2009, 11:51:13 pm »

Funny that you then post the Washington Post.
Logged
Lizzzard
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 51,499
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1915 on: August 17, 2009, 11:54:55 pm »

Funny that you then post the Washington Post.

OK, then Pennsylvania (R2000/DailyKos):

55% Favorable
40% Unfavorable

The Research 2000 Pennsylvania Poll was conducted from August 10 through August 12, 2009. A total of 600 likely voters who vote regularly in state elections were interviewed statewide by telephone.

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2009/8/12/PA/345
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1916 on: August 17, 2009, 11:56:06 pm »

And another joke pollster...
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,348
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1917 on: August 18, 2009, 12:06:19 am »

Virginia (Washington Post)Sad

57% Approve
41% Disapprove

This Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone August 11-14, 2009, among a random sample of 1,002 adults in the Commonwealth of Virginia including users of both conventional and cellular phones. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_081609.html

And yet it has McDonnell leading Deeds by 7-15 points.  Roll Eyes
Logged
Lizzzard
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 51,499
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1918 on: August 18, 2009, 12:13:59 am »

Virginia (Washington Post)Sad

57% Approve
41% Disapprove

This Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone August 11-14, 2009, among a random sample of 1,002 adults in the Commonwealth of Virginia including users of both conventional and cellular phones. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_081609.html

And yet it has McDonnell leading Deeds by 7-15 points.  Roll Eyes

The Obama approval is among "adults", the governor race is about "registered and likely voters".

If you scroll down to the bottom, you'll notice the completely different makeup of these groups:

ADULTS: 37% IND, 31% DEM, 28% REP (IND lean 16-15 for the REPs)

RV: 35% IND, 31% DEM, 29% REP (IND lean 17-13 for the REPs)

LV: 34% IND, 27% DEM, 34% REP (IND lean 20-11 for the REPs)

So, there's a 46-44 DEM advantage among Adults, a 46-44 REP advantage among RV and a 54-38 REP advantage among LV ...
Logged
Alcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,909
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1919 on: August 18, 2009, 12:21:26 am »
« Edited: August 18, 2009, 12:24:19 am by Alcon »

Well statistically speaking, they are exactly the same considering Rasmussen's poll has a 3.5% margin of error. But I get your point.

not quite.  Statistically speaking, we cannot be 95% sure that they are not the same result.  They are not "exactly the same" until we're 95% sure they aren't the same and then we magically decide that they are definitely different.  That doesn't make any sense

Just because a poll is within the MoE does not mean the result should be assumed to be the same, and 95% is a fundamentally arbitrary cut-off anyway
Logged
Eraserhead
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 43,109
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1920 on: August 18, 2009, 01:11:03 am »

Virginia (Washington Post)Sad

57% Approve
41% Disapprove

This Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone August 11-14, 2009, among a random sample of 1,002 adults in the Commonwealth of Virginia including users of both conventional and cellular phones. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_081609.html

Probably too good to be true.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,447
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1921 on: August 18, 2009, 06:16:28 am »

Can't be easy being for Obama attempting to seek consensus when so many on the other side remain dogmatically recalcitrant.

It also can't be easy for Obama to seek consensus when he's unable to lead.

A good leader doesn't pass the buck. A good leader starts with a plan, and then leads people towards consensus.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,943
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1922 on: August 18, 2009, 07:59:25 am »

Virginia (Washington Post)Sad

57% Approve
41% Disapprove

This Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone August 11-14, 2009, among a random sample of 1,002 adults in the Commonwealth of Virginia including users of both conventional and cellular phones. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_081609.html

...no...even I can admit that that's not right.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,734
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1923 on: August 18, 2009, 08:02:13 am »
« Edited: August 18, 2009, 12:01:23 pm by pbrower2a »


Still more confidence in this president than I ever had the dogmatoid arthritic who preceded him

Because the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and No Child Left Behind adhered so closely to conservative dogma?

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was practically designed to feed purveyors of standardized tests. It pushed teachers and school administrators to meet the demands of tests at the expense of other teaching activities -- anything other than the Three Rs. Such came at the cost of such essentials as science, history, civics,  and the arts. You know science, right? That's how we solve lots of problems. History is how we make sense of events. Civics tells us the norms of government (norms that Bush, Cheney, Rove, Abramoff, and deLay mocked to the detiment of good practice). The arts establish that more exists to life than crude acquisitiveness.

The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit forced the government to pay top dollar for prescription medications, clearly something that only a corporate stooge would promote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bush was able to lead?  Where was he when the economy began falling off a cliff in 2007?
[/quote]

He signed a ridiculous "stimulus" bill.  When the sh**t really hit the fan, he signed the EESA against the will of his own party.  Oh, and he did this with a Congress in opposition.  While he may have made bad decisions, you can't say he wasn't able to lead.

[/quote]

Whatever deficiencies Obama may have as a leader, his deficiencies are nothing contrasted to those of Dubya. Dubya was a pathological liar and a puppet of those who gave him his campaign funds. As for the stimulus bill, such came at the behest of his buddies in the financial industry, people who themselves created the problem and got scared of consequences of failure that might include mass revolt that might happen under his successor. To them it mattered far less who would be President then than that there be no threat of revolution. Choose your metaphor for the consequences: the financiers culpable for the subprime lending/real-estate bubble meltdown would be among the first to go to the wall before the firing squad (as in Castro's Cuba) or be led to the guillotine (French Revolution).  At the least the would be dispossessed like aristocrats in Lenin's Bolshevik Russia... it was the financiers who were scared. Add to that, much of the give-away was to foreign investors -- like capitalists in China -- who insisted on a return of the investment that the Bush maladministration pushed upon them. Those who rip off foreign lenders are in deep trouble; they make it good or they take others down with themselves. You didn't expect Chinese lenders to let us off the hook for our follies, did you? Don't you think that they would have ways in which to overthrow those who ripped them off?

As for economic management, Dubya stood for the most hare-brained of policies possible: rewarding tycoons and executives for gutting a nation's manufacturing with tax cuts while promoting speculation in real estate as an anodyne. Except that the object of speculation in the 1920s was more in corporate securities than in real estate, Dubya's economic policies were out of the Harding/Coolidge playbook whence came the disaster that Herbert Hoover couldn't undo.   

Dubya had one virtue as a politician: he was loyal to those who raised him into the formality of power. He never contradicted them and never showed any resistance to their most hare-brained and myopic schemes. When his handlers got scared, he did what they told him to do. That stimulus bill arose when financiers got scared of images of people like them losing their class privilege, if not their lives.

The best evidence that Dubya was a disaster was that the GOP used his image as sparingly as possible -- and the Democrats exploited contempt of his egregious failures as much as possible.  Dubya took the trust that others had developed in America and trashed it.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,734
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1924 on: August 18, 2009, 08:09:47 am »

Here we go again:



Again, VA is an average, and if it weren't an average, it would be a darker shade of green.

Except for some very old polls (SC, TN, SD, UT), Obama seems to be about where he was in November 2008.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 72 73 74 75 76 [77] 78 79 80 81 82 ... 410 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC