Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 24, 2020, 02:33:31 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 138 139 140 141 142 [143] 144 145 146 147 148 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1026702 times)
ConservativeIllini
Full Member
***
Posts: 104


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3550 on: January 14, 2010, 12:10:18 pm »

Not sure that it affects your map Rowan, but the Rassy results from Ohio show 46% approval and 54% disapproval, as opposed to the 50% mistakenly listed earlier.
Logged
Umengus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,204
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3551 on: January 14, 2010, 12:23:03 pm »

Ohio, Oregon, New Jersey, Washington:




46% approval is probably enough to win Ohio.

The recent Nevada poll averages out with another for no real change.

... New Hampshire begs for a fresh poll. No way can New Hampshire be as unsympathetic to Obama as is Idaho.


Unlike Rowan Brandon, who distinguishes between "under 50%" and "over 50%" I go for "approval under disapproval" (shades of yellow to dark brown), a tie (white), and "approval greater than disapproval" (shades of green). It's strictly a matter of taste, and I can't say that one is more relevant than the other at this point.

If there is a real difference it may be that his suggests the idea that if the GOP has a really-strong candidate in the wings, Obama loses in places in which his approval rating is below 50%. Mine suggests that the GOP lacks someone capable of offering an alternative, and that many disgruntled conservatives will find the choice between an uninspiring right-winger and an effective incumbent cause them to not vote.    


46 % is probably not enough to win Ohio, considering that the gop candidate is good.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,740
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3552 on: January 14, 2010, 12:45:34 pm »

... New Hampshire begs for a fresh poll.

NH was polled by Rasmussen in the last few days. I think he had 53% approval there.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/new_hampshire/election_2010_new_hampshire_senate

Obama won New Hampshire over John McCain with 54% of the vote in 2008, and 52% of the state’s voters approve of the job the president is doing, including 31% who strongly approve. Forty-seven percent (47%) disapprove of the president’s job performance, with 38% who strongly disapprove.




Another "S" crashes and burns, just as I expected.
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 #3553 on: January 14, 2010, 12:54:13 pm »

Ohio, Oregon, New Jersey, Washington:




46% approval is probably enough to win Ohio.

The recent Nevada poll averages out with another for no real change.

... New Hampshire begs for a fresh poll. No way can New Hampshire be as unsympathetic to Obama as is Idaho.


Unlike Rowan Brandon, who distinguishes between "under 50%" and "over 50%" I go for "approval under disapproval" (shades of yellow to dark brown), a tie (white), and "approval greater than disapproval" (shades of green). It's strictly a matter of taste, and I can't say that one is more relevant than the other at this point.

If there is a real difference it may be that his suggests the idea that if the GOP has a really-strong candidate in the wings, Obama loses in places in which his approval rating is below 50%. Mine suggests that the GOP lacks someone capable of offering an alternative, and that many disgruntled conservatives will find the choice between an uninspiring right-winger and an effective incumbent cause them to not vote.    


46 % is probably not enough to win Ohio, considering that the gop candidate is good.

Do we already have a 2012 Republican candidate for president?
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,740
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3554 on: January 14, 2010, 01:42:50 pm »

Ohio, Oregon, New Jersey, Washington:

Unlike Rowan Brandon, who distinguishes between "under 50%" and "over 50%" I go for "approval under disapproval" (shades of yellow to dark brown), a tie (white), and "approval greater than disapproval" (shades of green). It's strictly a matter of taste, and I can't say that one is more relevant than the other at this point.

If there is a real difference it may be that his suggests the idea that if the GOP has a really-strong candidate in the wings, Obama loses in places in which his approval rating is below 50%. Mine suggests that the GOP lacks someone capable of offering an alternative, and that many disgruntled conservatives will find the choice between an uninspiring right-winger and an effective incumbent cause them to not vote.    


46 % is probably not enough to win Ohio, considering that the gop candidate is good.

Do we already have a 2012 Republican candidate for president?

We obviously don't. We don't see any obvious leader, and political events will sort things out.  Can the GOP nominee bind together the usual conservative interests and appeal to people near the center of the political spectrum? That asks for much -- perhaps too much -- especially if Obama proves a reasonably-competent President who delivers what he promises and mitigates some of the initial fears of his Presidency.

On the other hand, will President Obama fail? The jury has yet to deliberate. We have more than a year and a half of historical events before Election 2012. President Obama could yet step on the wrong toes. Some unforeseen situations can yet blow up.

One reasonable certainty (barring you-know-whose death or incapacitation)  is that Barack Obama will seek re-election. He is the near-certainty as the nominee of the Democratic Party. It's the Democrats who lack a viable alternative right now. Another is that George W. Bush will remain discredited. Any Republican who reminds Americans of George W. Bush will be defeated. Any successful GOP nominee will have to distance himself from our 43rd President successfully if he is to be the 45th President. Voting records of GOP legislators will be compared to the positions of the 43rd President will be used against them.

What is the great fear? If Obama is an effective President, then what do conservatives lose from four more years of that President?  Maybe they get to establish some individual records and new ideas for what will be a set of political priorities that, fresh in 2008, will be stale in 2016. Could it be that a truly-effective President resets the political language and expectations, setting new positions for conservatives and liberals?  What is wrong with a stronger economy that has had the gangrene of economic corruption excised?

Re-alignments happen under the cover of blowout elections. Contrast the pattern of voting between 1976 and 1992: Jimmy Carter won a bunch of states (Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina) that have never since voted for a Democratic nominee and even got close to winning Oklahoma, arguably one of the most consistent states at voting Republican by huge margins.  In contrast, Carter lost California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine -- states that the Republicans have lost in every Presidential election beginning in 1992, and three states (Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) which the Democrats have lost only once since 1992. New coalitions form as the agenda of a seemingly-unassailable coalition breaks down under the noses of Presidents who have won with landslides -- like George Herbert Walker Bush.

Think about it: the Democrats now depend upon a bunch of states that Carter... lost. The GOP will return to the White House by winning states that nobody now thinks reasonable targets. 

 

   

 

   
Logged
ConservativeIllini
Full Member
***
Posts: 104


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3555 on: January 14, 2010, 02:15:19 pm »

Ohio, Oregon, New Jersey, Washington:

Unlike Rowan Brandon, who distinguishes between "under 50%" and "over 50%" I go for "approval under disapproval" (shades of yellow to dark brown), a tie (white), and "approval greater than disapproval" (shades of green). It's strictly a matter of taste, and I can't say that one is more relevant than the other at this point.

If there is a real difference it may be that his suggests the idea that if the GOP has a really-strong candidate in the wings, Obama loses in places in which his approval rating is below 50%. Mine suggests that the GOP lacks someone capable of offering an alternative, and that many disgruntled conservatives will find the choice between an uninspiring right-winger and an effective incumbent cause them to not vote.    


46 % is probably not enough to win Ohio, considering that the gop candidate is good.

Do we already have a 2012 Republican candidate for president?
The GOP will return to the White House by winning states that nobody now thinks reasonable targets.     

Really?  I mean, I know the 2008 election didn't sort out like team red had hoped, but this premise seems false.  After checking out the census's expected results, it appears that the Repubs need to win back IN, NC, VA, FL, OH, in order to regain control of the White House... 3 of those (IN, NC, VA) are long Republican strongholds, FL went blue in a VERY STRONG Democratic year by just 2.5%, and OH went blue by 4%, less than the national average. 

You're nuts if you think the 2012 campaign will resemble the 2008 campaign, as Obama can't run on transformative messages of hope and change anymore, but will have to run on his record (which may include a successful economic recovery, that is to be seen). 

So what states must the GOP win that you do not consider reasonable targets for team red?  I'm not trying to sound condescending, just looking for debate!
Logged
ConservativeIllini
Full Member
***
Posts: 104


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3556 on: January 14, 2010, 02:23:39 pm »


I have to question the unintentional bias in asking about President Obama approvals after mentioning the name of the toxic Harry Reid, who is sure to be voted out later this year.  It seems like this could drag down the president's approvals slightly (maybe it's just my skepticism, however).
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,314


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3557 on: January 14, 2010, 02:49:35 pm »

Perhaps, but Obama has always had low approval ratings, which is confusing because of how large the margin in which he won it.
Logged
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 #3558 on: January 14, 2010, 03:13:45 pm »


I have to question the unintentional bias in asking about President Obama approvals after mentioning the name of the toxic Harry Reid, who is sure to be voted out later this year.  It seems like this could drag down the president's approvals slightly (maybe it's just my skepticism, however).

Obama's approval was the first question asked:

Q1 Do you approve or disapprove of Barack
Obama’s job performance? If you approve,
press 1. If you disapprove, press 2. If you’re
not sure, press 3.
Approve .......................................................... 44%
Disapprove...................................................... 52%
Not Sure.......................................................... 4%
Logged
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 #3559 on: January 14, 2010, 03:15:17 pm »

Minnesota(Rasmussen)

Approve 52%
Disapprove 47%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/minnesota/toplines/toplines_minnesota_january_11_2010

Logged
ConservativeIllini
Full Member
***
Posts: 104


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3560 on: January 14, 2010, 03:38:53 pm »


I have to question the unintentional bias in asking about President Obama approvals after mentioning the name of the toxic Harry Reid, who is sure to be voted out later this year.  It seems like this could drag down the president's approvals slightly (maybe it's just my skepticism, however).

Obama's approval was the first question asked:

Q1 Do you approve or disapprove of Barack
Obama’s job performance? If you approve,
press 1. If you disapprove, press 2. If you’re
not sure, press 3.
Approve .......................................................... 44%
Disapprove...................................................... 52%
Not Sure.......................................................... 4%

My mistake...not sure what the heck I was looking at
Logged
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 #3561 on: January 14, 2010, 05:28:23 pm »

New Jersey(Rasmussen)

Approve 53%
Disapprove 47%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/new_jersey/toplines/toplines_new_jersey_i_january_13_2010

Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,740
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3562 on: January 14, 2010, 07:07:30 pm »

Ohio, Oregon, New Jersey, Washington:

Unlike Rowan Brandon, who distinguishes between "under 50%" and "over 50%" I go for "approval under disapproval" (shades of yellow to dark brown), a tie (white), and "approval greater than disapproval" (shades of green). It's strictly a matter of taste, and I can't say that one is more relevant than the other at this point.

If there is a real difference it may be that his suggests the idea that if the GOP has a really-strong candidate in the wings, Obama loses in places in which his approval rating is below 50%. Mine suggests that the GOP lacks someone capable of offering an alternative, and that many disgruntled conservatives will find the choice between an uninspiring right-winger and an effective incumbent cause them to not vote.    


46 % is probably not enough to win Ohio, considering that the gop candidate is good.

Do we already have a 2012 Republican candidate for president?
The GOP will return to the White House by winning states that nobody now thinks reasonable targets.     

Really?  I mean, I know the 2008 election didn't sort out like team red had hoped, but this premise seems false.  After checking out the census's expected results, it appears that the Repubs need to win back IN, NC, VA, FL, OH, in order to regain control of the White House... 3 of those (IN, NC, VA) are long Republican strongholds, FL went blue in a VERY STRONG Democratic year by just 2.5%, and OH went blue by 4%, less than the national average. 

You're nuts if you think the 2012 campaign will resemble the 2008 campaign, as Obama can't run on transformative messages of hope and change anymore, but will have to run on his record (which may include a successful economic recovery, that is to be seen). 

So what states must the GOP win that you do not consider reasonable targets for team red?  I'm not trying to sound condescending, just looking for debate!

The 2012 election will either be:

1. A huge Obama loss (if he has a catastrophic Presidency, signs of which I have yet to see)

2. A close Obama loss (getting 230 - 268 electoral votes)

3. A tie (269 electoral votes) decided in the House of Representatives

4. A bare Obama win  (270 - 310 electoral votes)

5. A win similar to Obama's 2008 or one of Clinton's electoral victories (355-400 electoral votes)

6. A win on an Eisenhower scale in 1952 or 1956 (about 450 electoral votes).  

There's nothing between cases 1 and 2 or between 4 and 5; Presidential elections do not result in wins of 55% to 65% of the electoral votes.  The difference between Case 5 and Case 6 is basically Texas, which Obama lost by a little more than 10%.   If about 6% of Americans who voted for McCain over Obama recoiled at the idea of a black man as President in states that he lost by less than 12%, he wins those states, one of which is Texas. Obama has likely maxed out inside the Blue Firewall.

To win the Presidency again in 2012, the GOP must basically win just about everything that neither Gore won in 2000 or Kerry won in 2004 even though reapportionment of the House is likely to transfer about 10 House seats to states that voted for Dubya in both 2000 and 2004. The states in question are reasonably Colorado and Nevada together, Virginia, Florida, and Ohio that Obama actually won or Missouri, which he came close to winning. Obama cannot win North Carolina without also winning Virginia, Indiana without also winning Ohio, Georgia without winning both North Carolina and Florida, or Arizona (which would have been close except that John McCain campaigned from there) without winning Colorado and Nevada. But giving Obama about even chances to win Colorado and Nevada together, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida, then the chance that Obama wins the Presidency is about 31 in 32 because those states are different enough in their demographics that their voting results become "independent". That is a probabilistic model, and right now that is the best that I can come up with. Winning Indiana, North Carolina, Arizona, or Georgia are dependent on other wins, so I need not account for them.  But if one of those states becomes a prohibitive favorite for Obama, then the 2012 election is all but impossible.

Should Obama be effective as a legislator and administrator (watch how he deals with the earthquake in Haiti and you may finally get an idea of him as an administrator), his chances of losing in 2012 go from a certifiable long shot (1 in 32) to something prohibitive.  

It is worth remembering that Obama is a superb campaigner -- arguably the best since at least Ronald Reagan. Governing gives the President little opportunity to show any fiery rhetoric. It's just as well. We have no right to expect excitement from our elected public officials. That's what sporting events and blockbuster movies are for for couch potatoes who don't get their thrills from more athletic activities. In the summer of 2012 he goes back on campaign mode if necessary -- and only if the election is not a foregone conclusion.  His campaign machine is as good as any that I have ever heard of.

As for states that lie within the current "Blue Firewall" I am discussing 2016 and 2020 -- not 2012. States that do not now seem reasonable targets for "Team Red" in 2012, and the difference between 1976 and 1992 (I may need to pull out a map contrasting 1976 to 1992) suggests what a difference 16 years can make.  

It is quite possible that the best thing that could happen to the GOP is an Obama landslide in 2012.  Such would force the GOP to try to rebuild a new coalition that attempts to find constituencies that Obama  and Clinton took for granted and thus underserved. Might the GOP have to look to the poor for new voters? Corporate America and the Religious Right aren't turning out more voters. Poor people like welfare recipients, the long-term unemployed, and people with low-paying jobs? Your guess is as good as mine.  The Democrats rebuilt a winning coalition as a response to Reagan-era landslides, and their coalition from 1992 until now has been practically the same. 18 states and DC  haven't voted for any Republican nominee since at least 1988, and 13 haven't voted for any Democratic nominee since at least 1980.  When 31 states aren't really in contest over five electoral cycles, something is fishy at the least with the electorate.

Presidential elections are apparently not national contests; in sixteen years, 31 states might as well have been foregone conclusions. 
Logged
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,073
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.94, S: 1.35

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3563 on: January 14, 2010, 07:13:22 pm »

Again, why is no one polling Indiana?  Idaho, Oklahoma, and Utah have more freakin` polls than Indiana, and McCain won by a lot in those states. Indiana was the most interesting state in the election.
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 #3564 on: January 14, 2010, 07:18:41 pm »

Again, why is no one polling Indiana?  Idaho, Oklahoma, and Utah have more freakin` polls than Indiana, and McCain won by a lot in those states. Indiana was the most interesting state in the election.

An approval poll would be pretty pointless just for Indiana atm. Also, it looks like Bayh will easily get re-elected, so a senatorial poll (which also include a Presidential approval question as a side note) would be a waste of money.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,740
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3565 on: January 14, 2010, 07:19:48 pm »

Minnesota, which last rejected a Democratic nominee in 1972 (McGovern) and New Jersey:


Logged
ConservativeIllini
Full Member
***
Posts: 104


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3566 on: January 14, 2010, 07:25:36 pm »

Ohio, Oregon, New Jersey, Washington:

Unlike Rowan Brandon, who distinguishes between "under 50%" and "over 50%" I go for "approval under disapproval" (shades of yellow to dark brown), a tie (white), and "approval greater than disapproval" (shades of green). It's strictly a matter of taste, and I can't say that one is more relevant than the other at this point.

If there is a real difference it may be that his suggests the idea that if the GOP has a really-strong candidate in the wings, Obama loses in places in which his approval rating is below 50%. Mine suggests that the GOP lacks someone capable of offering an alternative, and that many disgruntled conservatives will find the choice between an uninspiring right-winger and an effective incumbent cause them to not vote.    


46 % is probably not enough to win Ohio, considering that the gop candidate is good.

Do we already have a 2012 Republican candidate for president?
The GOP will return to the White House by winning states that nobody now thinks reasonable targets.     

Really?  I mean, I know the 2008 election didn't sort out like team red had hoped, but this premise seems false.  After checking out the census's expected results, it appears that the Repubs need to win back IN, NC, VA, FL, OH, in order to regain control of the White House... 3 of those (IN, NC, VA) are long Republican strongholds, FL went blue in a VERY STRONG Democratic year by just 2.5%, and OH went blue by 4%, less than the national average. 

You're nuts if you think the 2012 campaign will resemble the 2008 campaign, as Obama can't run on transformative messages of hope and change anymore, but will have to run on his record (which may include a successful economic recovery, that is to be seen). 

So what states must the GOP win that you do not consider reasonable targets for team red?  I'm not trying to sound condescending, just looking for debate!

The 2012 election will either be:

1. A huge Obama loss (if he has a catastrophic Presidency, signs of which I have yet to see)

2. A close Obama loss (getting 230 - 268 electoral votes)

3. A tie (269 electoral votes) decided in the House of Representatives

4. A bare Obama win  (270 - 310 electoral votes)

5. A win similar to Obama's 2008 or one of Clinton's electoral victories (355-400 electoral votes)

6. A win on an Eisenhower scale in 1952 or 1956 (about 450 electoral votes).  

There's nothing between cases 1 and 2 or between 4 and 5; Presidential elections do not result in wins of 55% to 65% of the electoral votes.  The difference between Case 5 and Case 6 is basically Texas, which Obama lost by a little more than 10%.   If about 6% of Americans who voted for McCain over Obama recoiled at the idea of a black man as President in states that he lost by less than 12%, he wins those states, one of which is Texas. Obama has likely maxed out inside the Blue Firewall.

To win the Presidency again in 2012, the GOP must basically win just about everything that neither Gore won in 2000 or Kerry won in 2004 even though reapportionment of the House is likely to transfer about 10 House seats to states that voted for Dubya in both 2000 and 2004. The states in question are reasonably Colorado and Nevada together, Virginia, Florida, and Ohio that Obama actually won or Missouri, which he came close to winning. Obama cannot win North Carolina without also winning Virginia, Indiana without also winning Ohio, Georgia without winning both North Carolina and Florida, or Arizona (which would have been close except that John McCain campaigned from there) without winning Colorado and Nevada. But giving Obama about even chances to win Colorado and Nevada together, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida, then the chance that Obama wins the Presidency is about 31 in 32 because those states are different enough in their demographics that their voting results become "independent". That is a probabilistic model, and right now that is the best that I can come up with. Winning Indiana, North Carolina, Arizona, or Georgia are dependent on other wins, so I need not account for them.  But if one of those states becomes a prohibitive favorite for Obama, then the 2012 election is all but impossible.

Should Obama be effective as a legislator and administrator (watch how he deals with the earthquake in Haiti and you may finally get an idea of him as an administrator), his chances of losing in 2012 go from a certifiable long shot (1 in 32) to something prohibitive.  

It is worth remembering that Obama is a superb campaigner -- arguably the best since at least Ronald Reagan. Governing gives the President little opportunity to show any fiery rhetoric. It's just as well. We have no right to expect excitement from our elected public officials. That's what sporting events and blockbuster movies are for for couch potatoes who don't get their thrills from more athletic activities. In the summer of 2012 he goes back on campaign mode if necessary -- and only if the election is not a foregone conclusion.  His campaign machine is as good as any that I have ever heard of.

As for states that lie within the current "Blue Firewall" I am discussing 2016 and 2020 -- not 2012. States that do not now seem reasonable targets for "Team Red" in 2012, and the difference between 1976 and 1992 (I may need to pull out a map contrasting 1976 to 1992) suggests what a difference 16 years can make.  

It is quite possible that the best thing that could happen to the GOP is an Obama landslide in 2012.  Such would force the GOP to try to rebuild a new coalition that attempts to find constituencies that Obama  and Clinton took for granted and thus underserved. Might the GOP have to look to the poor for new voters? Corporate America and the Religious Right aren't turning out more voters. Poor people like welfare recipients, the long-term unemployed, and people with low-paying jobs? Your guess is as good as mine.  The Democrats rebuilt a winning coalition as a response to Reagan-era landslides, and their coalition from 1992 until now has been practically the same. 18 states and DC  haven't voted for any Republican nominee since at least 1988, and 13 haven't voted for any Democratic nominee since at least 1980.  When 31 states aren't really in contest over five electoral cycles, something is fishy at the least with the electorate.

Presidential elections are apparently not national contests; in sixteen years, 31 states might as well have been foregone conclusions. 

So none is basically your answer to my question posed above?
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,740
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3567 on: January 14, 2010, 08:50:16 pm »
« Edited: January 14, 2010, 11:07:07 pm by pbrower2a »

[

So none is basically your answer to my question posed above?

That's right -- none, at least until 2016.

It will take a shift of nearly 5% of the vote for the GOP nominee to win any state that no GOP nominee has won more than once after 1988 (the closest of those would be Iowa and New Hampshire). Obama won every state that has never voted for a GOP nominee after 1988 (eighteen states and DC) by at least 10%. New Mexico voted for Obama by a large margin, too.

The Republicans can win only with Dubya-like victories, winning everything that Dubya won in both 2000 and 2004, unless Obama proves catastrophically incompetent or corrupt. They could still get away with losing Nevada and Montana or Colorado, but with losses in Colorado and anything else, the GOP will lose even with the re-apportionment of the states. Add to that, the GOP must win everything else that Obama won except the one electoral vote that Greater Omaha has to offer.

Because Obama's campaign will practically colonize Nevada with campaigners from California, Nevada will be a bad bet for the GOP in 2012 even if disgraced Senator John Ensign hasn't chosen to resign before then. If the GOP loses Nevada, then Obama has possible wins in very different states scattered across the country. Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Florida, and Colorado are different enough that the GOP nominee will have no easy way of tailoring an appeal that works in all five states at once. Defending every one of them will be extremely difficult.  

Speaking of the contrast between 1976 and 1992:

   


Key (ignore letters):


Carter 1976/Clinton 1992(16 states and DC)

Carter 1976/GHWB 1992  (6 states)

Ford 1976/Clinton 1992 (15 states)

Ford 1976/GHWB 1992 (12 states)


What a difference sixteen years can make in the political culture of so many states! Such happens when a party finds something other than "they way we used to win" and can win. Oddly, Carter and Clinton had similar ideologies, so the difference was not so much personalities as the ability of the Democrats to win over some big states while the Republicans won over states that the Democrats used to win). Some of those states -- some very big -- have stayed switched, including California, Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey for the Democrats -- and Texas for the Republicans.  

 
Logged
Lizzzard
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 51,504
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3568 on: January 15, 2010, 01:36:45 am »

Massachusettes (Suffolk University)Sad

48% Approve
43% Disapprove

The statewide survey of 500 Massachusetts registered voters was conducted Jan. 11-13, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.38 percent at a 95 percent level of confidence.

http://www.suffolk.edu/39994.html
Logged
Lizzzard
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 51,504
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3569 on: January 15, 2010, 01:51:44 am »

FOX News:

50% Approve
42% Disapprove

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/011410_Obamaapproval.pdf

McClatchy/Ipsos:

52% Approve
45% Disapprove

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/nation/story/82156.html
Logged
Alcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3570 on: January 15, 2010, 03:06:46 am »

For a healthy reminder of why we shouldn't be overthinking polls: Massachusetts, the GOP-leaning swing state of 2012.
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3571 on: January 15, 2010, 06:08:16 am »

Well it is Suffolk Uni, so.... duh. Tongue
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3572 on: January 15, 2010, 06:08:30 am »

For a healthy reminder of why we shouldn't be overthinking polls: Massachusetts, the GOP-leaning swing state of 2012.

Probably exagerated a bit, and note the 25/60 ratings Palin pulls in that same poll for comparison. Romney's numbers, at 49/43 are not that hot either.

That said, something is happening, and a lot of legislators on Beacon Hill are quite scared at the moment.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,740
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3573 on: January 15, 2010, 08:59:03 am »
« Edited: January 15, 2010, 12:17:06 pm by pbrower2a »

For a healthy reminder of why we shouldn't be overthinking polls: Massachusetts, the GOP-leaning swing state of 2012.

Probably exagerated a bit, and note the 25/60 ratings Palin pulls in that same poll for comparison. Romney's numbers, at 49/43 are not that hot either.

That said, something is happening, and a lot of legislators on Beacon Hill are quite scared at the moment.

Just as well. The combination of arrogance and complacency is the bane of good government.
Logged
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 #3574 on: January 15, 2010, 09:41:08 am »

Colorado(Rasmussen)

Approve 47%
Disapprove 52%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/colorado/toplines/toplines_2010_colorado_senate_january_13_2010


Logged
Pages: 1 ... 138 139 140 141 142 [143] 144 145 146 147 148 ... 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