The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[Badger]

Why do you continue to ignore the question about why you chose to include this NJ poll and rejected the earlier one?

I'm going to keep asking until you answer.

For the NJ poll showing disapproval of Obama, remind me again what the sample's 2008 vote was? Wasn't it a few points for McCain compared to an actual vote of 57-41? Even if a reasonable expected number of 2008 Obama voters lied about their vote to pollsters over regret/selective memory, that sample was still clearly FAR out of whack with the actual NJ electorate. Not to mention, even the most partisan NJ Republican on this board will acknowledge that Obama's approval rating in NJ should be running at least several points ahead of his national ratings. So Rasmussen showing Obama's national approval/disapproval rating at about -2 to even, Rassy concurrently showin a NJ approval poll a couple points worse is obviously flawed.

In a word, outlier.

Of course, Pbrower, you could just factor that errant NJ poll in to the map anyway just to shut these people up. What the hey? NJ will be back to green--probably to stay--when the next couple poll comes out over the next month and a half.

[Badger]

Interesting polls, Florida and Louisiana:

Sometimes you get what you ask for. Florida isn't that much of a surprise; Obama barely won the state in 2008. Recent polls in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee suggest that although he would lose those states he wouldn't lose them by as much as in 2008. Could the political polarization of 2008 be abating?

No, and you're an idiot if you think it will be close in those states.

So what was your prediction for Florida last year, Rowan?

[Badger]

but a poll is a poll unless the organization is suspect.

Coming from you, LOL.

He does seem very biased.

Get used to it. Sometimes I think he is a robot, created by the DNC, to try and get people to think Obama is unbeatable in 2012, in the hopes that many Republicans won't even vote.

I don't understand why he is the one running this thread. I see a clear bias and he uses favorability instead of approval, I've noticed! Can't we find someone else to make the fancy little map?

Anyone can make the maps, no one else besides PBrower chooses to, though.

(To everyone): Then for the love of God quit bitching about his maps and make your own!

[Badger]

The Massachusetts poll looks a bit fishy, but a poll is a poll unless the organization is suspect. Michigan? Not so strange.

He includes a pro-Obama outlier poll. The chorus swells: "Pbrower's an Obamabot hack" etc. etc.

He includes an anti-Obama outlier poll from Massachusetts here: Two pages follow of: "Pbrower's an Obamabot hack" etc. etc. etc. etc.

I'm not saying Pbrower's every decision on mapping has been correct, nor that people shouldn't call him on it if he does it again, but the constant chorus of hackery disconnected from what he's actually doing is getting downright annoying. (Or maybe it's still early for me and I'm just grumpy) ):-(

Regardless, he's the only one consistently updating an electoral map for this thread. If his methodology is so bad, someone else step up and persistently maintain your own map on the thread.

OK, rant off.

[Badger]

Ohio was more Republican than the national average in 2008, so it may be safe to say that it leans more culturally towards the Republican Party today than it does the Democratic Party.

Right, but in 2004, the state was on par with the election results from the nation. In fact, it might have been SLIGHTLY more Democratic IIRC.

It really depends on the candidate. If a Clinton type Democrat is running, it will probably lean Democrat by 1-2%. If there's a stong Republican running, then it will lean slightly Republican.

Ohio was, in fact, slightly more Democratic voting than the country---by less than 0.4%. Other than LBJ's 64 landslide it was the only time this century Ohio leaned further from the GOP than the national vote (including both of Clinton's wins). The 2004 aberration isn't surprising considering Ohio was at the time dead last in job creation and a host of other economic indicators.

Ohio's GOP lean has generally run about 1-4 points. Obama's Ohio margin of victory running approx 2.7% behind his national margin was fairly average in this respect.

[Badger]

It better not pass, I don't want an increase in my taxes.

So you're a rich?

It doesn't just raise taxes on the rich.

Wrong.

# The bill taxes individuals making more than $500,000 and $1 million for couples. It is a 5.4 percent tax.

That is the definition of rich. Very, very rich actually.

[Badger]

It better not pass, I don't want an increase in my taxes.

So you're a rich?

I'm not rich or poor, just need to conserve my money.  I have student loans, car payment etc....

# The bill taxes individuals making more than $500,000 and $1 million for couples. It is a 5.4 percent tax.


If like most Americans you're struggling with student loans and a car payment, this will not touch you, or probably not even the richest person you personally know.

[Badger]

Just because Obama is running higher the avg approval ratings in SC doesn't mean crap. SC has a high black population, so his approval ratings would be high.

I really don't get what this is supposed to mean. Pollsters generally know how to properly account for these things, certainly Rasmussen and PPP would.

I think his point(or at least mine) is that white Democrats are willing to disapprove of Obama while Black Democrats are not willing to do that. This makes his numbers here higher than in other southern states. Just a theory.

Yea, that is what I was trying to say. I have talk to alot of black folks and most of them just approve of Obama because he is black.

In depth discussions with both blacks you know, I'm sure.

Do you think most white people who disapprove of Obama do so because he's black?

[Badger]

Did anyone notice the crosstabs in that PPP poll on North Carolina? 
47% D, 34% R is questionable, but the poll favors the president, so let it be. 

You learn quickly that you should ignore Pbrower's posts neverending critics who constantly bitch but rarely offer maps of their own.

[Badger]

Its nice to see after a solid year of bitchin and moanin about Pbrowers maps that someone finally actually stepped up and did one of their own instead of continuing to just complain.

Now the farce has been exposed. With Pbrower's rampant bias removed and replaced with other posters biases we see the map has radically flipped....Colorado which Pbrower himself switched after a delay of nearly <gasp) 48 hours.

Great job!

[Badger]

ARG = trash. I would be as quick to dismiss this poll as one showing him breaking even in Tennessee.

[Badger]

It's more like Pennsylvania.

New Hampshire is similar to Pennsylvania???

No, but it doesn't matter to him.

When was the last NH poll?

In one sense: Their 2008 results were nearly identical.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

And considering NH may be the only state outside AZ to have a decided pro-McCain (vs. pro-GOP) bias, Pbrower might actually have a point here.

Nah, what am I saying? Everybody knows he's just a hack.

[Badger]

As far as I'm informed, there are more Democrats than Republicans in Oklahoma.

Pay attention to the approval margins among Democrats and Republicans, that's a lot more important.

I saw the sample sizes for people of different affiliations. One can create a valid poll out of a distorted sample if one norms the sample. If one gets 325 Democrats, 267 Republicans, 28 independents, and 1 libertarian the pollster might have decided after calling 250 Republicans who went 8-1 against Obama to quit calling Republicans because further calls would be superfluous. Does Oklahoma have that many Democrats or that few independents, or even so few libertarians? No way is Oklahoma so politically divided as to have 54.8% of its voters as registered Democrats. If I were guessing, I'd figure that 60% at the least of all Oklahoma voters are registered Republicans.

Quit guessing and stick to facts. There are more Democrats than Republicans in Oklahoma.

They just don't vote like Democrats, and haven't voted like Democrats for a very long time!

Don't try to spin your way out. You claimed that 60% of voters in Oklahoma were registered Republicans. I proved that claim wrong.

You were absolutely right on the first point; Pbrower's absolutely right on the second.

You both win! Hooray!!

[Badger]

http://blog.pos.org/2010/01/western-states-update-gop-back-on-top/

"President Obama’s job approval numbers have plummeted in the West. A majority of voters (53%) in Western states disapprove of the job he’s doing while 45% approve. Compare this to the 100-day mark in his term when Obama’s job approval in the West was 59% approve/33% disapprove."

States mentioned:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What a way to sensationalise a headline. :S

Of course Obama's Western approvals will drop if you take out Cali, one of the most Dem states in the country which also happens to be the biggest state in the country/region. That's like saying "Oh, let's look at Obama's approvals in the North-East, but let's ignore New York".

California is a given, many of the other states were thought to be trending Democrat. Besides, when you refer to the west, most people won't think of California.

Did the %9% approval poll from the 100 day mark exclude California (or the rest of the states in the new poll)? If not, this is Drudge level hackery. If so, it's accurate. Case closed.

[Badger]

Strategic Vision is back !

Georgia:

37% Approve
50% Disapprove

The results are based on telephone interviews with 800 likely voters in Georgia, aged 18+, and conducted March 5-8, 2010 by telephone. The margin of sampling error is ±3.5 percentage points.

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/georgia_poll_031510.htm

The huge gap between approval and disapproval indicates the uselessness of that poll. I'd have to show it with the letter "S" (spurious, suspicious, screwy, shady)... except that such would crowd out another and more reliable poll.

I will not use this one. 

I'd reconsider, PBrower. 13% undecided is hardly out of line. It just indicates they don't pistol whip undecideds to leaning the way Scotty apparantly does with his "0% undecided" results. Nor are these numbers overall particularly out of line for GA.

And thank you all for sparing the ubiquitous "of course he'll exclude it cause it's bad for Obama and he's a hack" response.

[Badger]

Strategic Vision is back !

Georgia:

37% Approve
50% Disapprove

The results are based on telephone interviews with 800 likely voters in Georgia, aged 18+, and conducted March 5-8, 2010 by telephone. The margin of sampling error is ±3.5 percentage points.

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/georgia_poll_031510.htm

The huge gap between approval and disapproval indicates the uselessness of that poll. I'd have to show it with the letter "S" (spurious, suspicious, screwy, shady)... except that such would crowd out another and more reliable poll.

I will not use this one.  

I usually don't even post in this thread, but I just want to clarify for my own amusement: You don't want to include this SV poll of Georgia, showing Obama at a "huge" -13, because he couldn't possibly be underwater in Georgia?

Strategic Vision is now also - for the first time ever - publishing crosstabs:

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_KEK8-LWmzhMWQ1YmZhYzMtMmQ0ZC00MDRiLTk4NGQtOWZiZjhmZWVkYWU4&hl=en

Interestingly, 22% of GA Blacks are undecided about Obama`s approval, while just 8% of Whites are.

"22% of GA blacks undecided"? I may've spoke too soon in support of this poll.

[Badger]

Strategic Vision is back !

Georgia:

37% Approve
50% Disapprove

The results are based on telephone interviews with 800 likely voters in Georgia, aged 18+, and conducted March 5-8, 2010 by telephone. The margin of sampling error is ±3.5 percentage points.

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/georgia_poll_031510.htm

The huge gap between approval and disapproval indicates the uselessness of that poll. I'd have to show it with the letter "S" (spurious, suspicious, screwy, shady)... except that such would crowd out another and more reliable poll.

I will not use this one.  

I usually don't even post in this thread, but I just want to clarify for my own amusement: You don't want to include this SV poll of Georgia, showing Obama at a "huge" -13, because he couldn't possibly be underwater in Georgia?

Strategic Vision is now also - for the first time ever - publishing crosstabs:

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_KEK8-LWmzhMWQ1YmZhYzMtMmQ0ZC00MDRiLTk4NGQtOWZiZjhmZWVkYWU4&hl=en

Interestingly, 22% of GA Blacks are undecided about Obama`s approval, while just 8% of Whites are.

"22% of GA blacks undecided"? I may've spoke too soon in support of this poll.

Obama is getting some criticism from the Black Caucus.  It could be the Uber liberal s in the Black community.

Could be, but we can hardly doubt 99% of these "undecided" African-American voters will turn out and vote for Obama in 2012.

[Badger]

Just wait for the vote on health care reform. Not until the bill is definitively passed in both Houses of Congress will we get to see how things turn out. The current trend looks like Obama as a one-term President with some right-wing nutcase becoming President with a stooge Congress in 2013, with America becoming something very different.

I agree with that, but what do you mean America "becoming something very different?"

You really don't want to know. Really. Anyone who thinks that Bush, Rove, and Cheney didn't go far enough will be very happy with the new America. That's all that I need say.

The people pushing the Bush 43/ Cheney ways are the Dems.

Not this one.

Or any other I know either come to think of it. We're too busy working to clean up the mess left behind.

[Badger]

Weren't you a Clinton supporter?

Yep.  I still am.  And I never said in my post above that I personally am against the bill or the president on this issue.  What I'm against are officials who're elected to represent the will of the people not doing their jobs.  When a majority of your constituents don't like something you're doing, you should either stop completely or go at it using a different approach.  The fact is, we need health care reform, but the way they've approached the reform hasn't worked.  So instead of having the support of the majority of the people, they're going to be shoving this thing down the throats (that's what she said - sorry...) of citizens who are against it.  It's going to backfire.

There's always the tension in democracy of the balance leaders must strike between following the dictates of their constituency vs. striving to lead towards immediately unpopular but necessary reforms.

From what I've seen generally polls that ask Americans if they support (insert generic description of current HCR plan) the majority clearly (albeit not overwhelmingly) support it, especially if it includes language describing a public option. If polls ask whether Americans support "the Obama/ Congress's/ Democratic/currently proposed" plan they tend to split or lean opposed. That indicates when the smoke and heat from the immediate debate subsides this is a plan most Americans will support over the status quo, thus justifying Obama's firm efforts to push this through.

Put another way, half-baked accusations of death panels and the like finding some fertile ground among the gullible and temporarily reducing poll support for HCR is no reason to abandon it.

[Badger]

Weren't you a Clinton supporter?

Yep.  I still am.  And I never said in my post above that I personally am against the bill or the president on this issue.  What I'm against are officials who're elected to represent the will of the people not doing their jobs.  When a majority of your constituents don't like something you're doing, you should either stop completely or go at it using a different approach.  The fact is, we need health care reform, but the way they've approached the reform hasn't worked.  So instead of having the support of the majority of the people, they're going to be shoving this thing down the throats (that's what she said - sorry...) of citizens who are against it.  It's going to backfire.

There's always the tension in democracy of the balance leaders must strike between following the dictates of their constituency vs. striving to lead towards immediately unpopular but necessary reforms.

From what I've seen generally polls that ask Americans if they support (insert generic description of current HCR plan) the majority clearly (albeit not overwhelmingly) support it, especially if it includes language describing a public option. If polls ask whether Americans support "the Obama/ Congress's/ Democratic/currently proposed" plan they tend to split or lean opposed. That indicates when the smoke and heat from the immediate debate subsides this is a plan most Americans will support over the status quo, thus justifying Obama's firm efforts to push this through.

Put another way, half-baked accusations of death panels and the like finding some fertile ground among the gullible and temporarily reducing poll support for HCR is no reason to abandon it.

New taxes without immediate benefits won't go over well, though.

True enough, which is my biggest concern about HCR (and Obama) surviving until 2014.

Still, there are several things that help here: 1) Some popular portions of the law kick in this year, such as regulating insurance companies denying/revoking coverage; 2) The taxes effect only a tiny tiny percentage of voters (albeit a group that through their wealth has inordinate influence in politics and the media); and 3) perhaps most importantly voters and politicians are already starting to accept HCR as a done deal, which is accordingly gaining in support now that it's a reality and the world (or even the US health care system) hasn't promptly collapsed or reverted to Stalinism as predicted.

[Badger]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47%

Disapprove 53% +1


"Strongly Approve" is at 30%, unchanged.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 43%, -1.

Its just going to get worse for Obama.

Oh wow, you can see the future? Can you tell me next week's lottery numbers?

Go ahead and keep thinking the economy is not going to COLLAPSE. Go ahead with your bad self. We shall see.

It already did just prior to his taking office. Now we're in recovery. The only question is whether jobs will follow quick enough for the Democrats to retain the House in November.

[Badger]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47%

Disapprove 53% +1


"Strongly Approve" is at 30%, unchanged.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 43%, -1.

Its just going to get worse for Obama.

Oh wow, you can see the future? Can you tell me next week's lottery numbers?

Go ahead and keep thinking the economy is not going to COLLAPSE. Go ahead with your bad self. We shall see.

It already did just prior to his taking office. Now we're in recovery. The only question is whether jobs will follow quick enough for the Democrats to retain the House in November.

What makes you think it won't happen again?

Because since the 20's Democratic presidents have universally had higher rates of job growth than every Republican president. Even Carter was better than Eisenhower in this regard. Also, I find no reason grounded in reality to buy into the right wing chicken littles who instinctively believe that the moderate improvement on the social safety net and deficit cutting measuer that health care reform entails is going to destroy the American economy.

[Badger]

Why is the Illinois poll not included, other than you don't like it's numbers?

Isn't it a GOP pollster? :S

Yes.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/6672/on-those-we-ask-america-illinois-polls

[Badger]

Pennsylvania (Susquehanna)

42% Approve
49% Disapprove

This statewide poll was conducted April 7-12 with 700 likely general election voters for Premium Access Members and general distribution purposes. The margin of error for a sample size of 700 is +/-3.7% at the 95% confidence level, but 6.1% for the sub sample of 254 Republicans and 4.9% for the sub sample of 400 Democrats (which includes an oversample).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29914043/April-2010-Susquehanna-Research-Poll

I can't use it: pollster entirely for Republican and "conservative" interests.

They do business with Republican candidates and not Democrats, but they also do work with non-partisan clients: the American Lung Association, ABC27 News, and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review Newspaper to name three.

Not saying you should use it, but it's not an exclusively Republican pollster.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is not non-partisan. It's owner, Richard Mellon Scaife, has for decades been the sugar daddy for far far right causes (e.g. the "Clinton had Vince Foster murdered" crowd, etc.). The Trib-Review accordingly makes Fox News look---well, fair and balanced.

[Badger]

Florida (Mason Dixon)

47% Excellent/Good
53% Fair/Poor

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/sfl-obama-florida-poll-results-05102010,0,3007899.htmlstory

Not too bad.

Especially with that nebulous "fair" rating in the mix.