Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 18, 2019, 10:55:17 am
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 178 179 180 181 182 [183] 184 185 186 187 188 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1016011 times)
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,446
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4550 on: April 16, 2010, 06:11:21 pm »

Arizona State Survey of 500 Likely Voters

Conducted April 13, 2010

By Rasmussen Reports

1* How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?

28% Strongly approve

13% Somewhat approve

8% Somewhat disapprove

50% Strongly disapprove

1% Not sure




Mixed approval and favorability (the latter Georgia and Michigan only):



The same key applies to both maps. Take your pick.

Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60% or higher disapproval)
40-44% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow 
45-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)

<50%  Approval greater: 30% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-60%: 60% Green
>60%: 80% Green


Months (All polls are from 2010):

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

C* -- March 2010, after the passage of Health Care Reform legislation in the House.

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), or more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Partisan polls and polls for special interests (trade associations, labor unions, ethnic associations) are excluded.

Z- no recent poll

31 states have checked in since HCR legislation was passed in the House.

Georgia is favorability, and 45% favorability suggests about a 46% vote. 41% approval would have about the same effect.



deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater  132
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin  16
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5%  76
white                        too close to call  22
pale blue                  Republican  under 5%  9
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin   55
deep blue                 Republican over 10%
  33 

44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 46%, 5% at 46%, 4% between 47% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

Favorability is probably 1% below the vote.  This model applies only to incumbents who have plenty of advantages unless they are shown to be failures.










Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,700
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4551 on: April 17, 2010, 12:13:51 am »

Some favorable ratings for Obama by R2000/DailyKos:

Arkansas: 38% Favorable, 60% Unfavorable

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/4/14/AR/473

Hawaii-01: 61% Favorable, 35% Unfavorable

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/4/14/HI/479
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,446
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4552 on: April 17, 2010, 10:09:09 am »


Some favorable ratings for Obama by R2000/DailyKos:

Arkansas: 38% Favorable, 60% Unfavorable

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/4/14/AR/473

Hawaii-01: 61% Favorable, 35% Unfavorable

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/4/14/HI/479

Hawaii -- one Congressional district, so I can't use it at all (if it were in Maine or Nebraska -- note the boxes, then I could). Arkansas -- marginally useful. R2000 seems to read much like approval but it is favorable/unfavorable, and it is at most a marginal change.




Mixed approval and favorability (the latter, Arkansas,  Georgia, and Michigan only):



The same key applies to both maps. Take your pick.

Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60% or higher disapproval)
40-44% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow 
45-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)

<50%  Approval greater: 30% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-60%: 60% Green
>60%: 80% Green


Months (All polls are from 2010):

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

C* -- March 2010, after the passage of Health Care Reform legislation in the House.

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), or more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Partisan polls and polls for special interests (trade associations, labor unions, ethnic associations) are excluded.

Z- no recent poll

31 states have checked in since HCR legislation was passed in the House.

Georgia is favorability, and 45% favorability suggests about a 46% vote. 41% approval would have about the same effect.



deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater  132
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin  16
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5%  76
white                        too close to call  22
pale blue                  Republican  under 5%  9
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin   55
deep blue                 Republican over 10%
  33 

44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 46%, 5% at 46%, 4% between 47% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

Favorability is probably 1% below the vote.  This model applies only to incumbents who have plenty of advantages unless they are shown to be failures.
Logged
Badger
badger
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4553 on: April 17, 2010, 11:45:37 am »
« Edited: April 17, 2010, 11:49:44 am by Badger »

Pennsylvania (Susquehanna)Sad

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.
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4554 on: April 17, 2010, 11:55:42 am »

Where's RB Sad
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4555 on: April 17, 2010, 12:47:00 pm »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45% -2

Disapprove 54% +2


"Strongly Approve" is at 27%, -3.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 44%, +2.


It could be a sample problem.

Gallup, however, is showing a drop as well. 

Approve 46% -3

Disapprove 46% +2
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,446
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4556 on: April 17, 2010, 01:02:31 pm »

Pennsylvania (Susquehanna)Sad

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.

Nice research. I checked the newspaper's website and found an editorial titled "A prescription against tyranny" praising the urologist who said that he would no longer treat anyone who supported Barack Obama in the 2008 election.  That is very different from an advocacy of "Repeal and Reform" (part of the political mainstream, if a fraudulent slogan) Only a right-wing extremist could praise such a decision. Partisan politics is not an appropriate matter in deciding whom to treat and whom not to treat in a medical practice.

 


Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4557 on: April 18, 2010, 09:38:24 am »
« Edited: April 18, 2010, 03:03:43 pm by J. J. »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47% +2

Disapprove 52% -2


"Strongly Approve" is at 27%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, -2.

Fixed typo.


Logged
Iosif
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,609


Political Matrix
E: -1.68, S: -3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4558 on: April 18, 2010, 10:59:07 am »

47+54=101
Logged
justW353
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,694
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4559 on: April 18, 2010, 11:03:51 am »



Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47% +2

Disapprove 54% -2


"Strongly Approve" is at 27%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, -2.




Huh?

It's 47% to 52%...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4560 on: April 18, 2010, 03:05:22 pm »

Gallup Obama National

Approve:  47 +1

Disapprove:  46 (u)
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4561 on: April 19, 2010, 08:35:23 am »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 48% +1

Disapprove 51% -1


"Strongly Approve" is at 29%, +2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 40%, -2.


Bad sample dropped off?
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,446
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4562 on: April 19, 2010, 11:32:10 am »
« Edited: April 19, 2010, 11:45:03 am by pbrower2a »

TEXAS

related to a gubernatorial race that is getting closer than one might expect  -- except that Rick Perry is a nut


Texas Survey of 500 Likely Voters

Conducted April 14, 2010

By Rasmussen Reports

1* How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?

29% Strongly approve

13% Somewhat approve

6% Somewhat disapprove

52% Strongly disapprove

1% Not sure

Close to the vote of 2008, which says much in itself.

Texas has no obvious analogue in any other state. It drifted sharply D (although McCain won it decisively) in a Presidential race involving nobody named Bush in 2008. It straddles geographic regions. Demographics are probably more like Florida than anything else -- which shows how reliable demographics are in predicting an election.

500 voters is probably too small a sample size in Texas due to its geographic diversity, so the state 'jumps' wildly in the polls.  Not even California is so capricious.

President Obama's win of Indiana in 2008 looks like a fluke this time. The Republicans are likely to win the Senate seat that Evan Bayh retired from.     




Mixed approval and favorability (the latter, Arkansas,  Georgia, and Michigan only):



The same key applies to both maps. Take your pick.

Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60% or higher disapproval)
40-44% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
45-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)

<50%  Approval greater: 30% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-60%: 60% Green
>60%: 80% Green


Months (All polls are from 2010):

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

C* -- March 2010, after the passage of Health Care Reform legislation in the House.

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), or more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Partisan polls and polls for special interests (trade associations, labor unions, ethnic associations) are excluded.

Z- no recent poll

34 states have checked in since HCR legislation was passed in the House.

Georgia is favorability, and 45% favorability suggests about a 46% vote. 41% approval would have about the same effect.



deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater  132
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin  16
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5%  76
white                        too close to call  22
pale blue                  Republican  under 5%  46
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin   55
deep blue                 Republican over 10%
 44  

44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 46%, 5% at 46%, 4% between 47% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

Favorability is probably 1% below the vote.  This model applies only to incumbents who have plenty of advantages unless they are shown to be failures.
Logged
ConservativeIllini
Full Member
***
Posts: 104


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4563 on: April 19, 2010, 01:24:38 pm »

Per Quinnipiac, Obama back at positive approval in Florida

50% approve

45% disapprove

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1297.xml?ReleaseID=1446
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,446
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4564 on: April 19, 2010, 01:56:08 pm »
« Edited: April 20, 2010, 09:21:09 am by pbrower2a »


The one I most wanted to see even if the result were different:

FLORIDA  

Per Quinnipiac, Obama back at positive approval in Florida

50% approve

45% disapprove

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1297.xml?ReleaseID=1446

and one that changes nothing (Pennsylvania):

Pennsylvania State Survey of 500 Likely Voters
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.





Mixed approval and favorability (the latter, Arkansas,  Georgia, and Michigan only):



The same key applies to both maps. Take your pick.

Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60% or higher disapproval)
40-44% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
45-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)

<50%  Approval greater: 30% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-60%: 60% Green
>60%: 80% Green


Months (All polls are from 2010):

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

C* -- March 2010, after the passage of Health Care Reform legislation in the House.

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), or more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Partisan polls and polls for special interests (trade associations, labor unions, ethnic associations) are excluded.

Z- no recent poll

35 states have checked in since HCR legislation was passed in the House.

Georgia is favorability, and 45% favorability suggests about a 46% vote. 41% approval would have about the same effect.



deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater  132
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin  44
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5%  76
white                        too close to call  22
pale blue                  Republican  under 5%  46
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin   55
deep blue                 Republican over 10%
 44  

44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 46%, 5% at 46%, 4% between 47% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

Favorability is probably 1% below the vote.  This model applies only to incumbents, who have plenty of advantages unless they are shown to be failures.

Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,636
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4565 on: April 19, 2010, 01:59:06 pm »

Per Quinnipiac, Obama back at positive approval in Florida

50% approve

45% disapprove

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1297.xml?ReleaseID=1446

Pretty surprised by that tbh.
Logged
Eraserhead
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 42,858
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4566 on: April 19, 2010, 02:06:55 pm »

Per Quinnipiac, Obama back at positive approval in Florida

50% approve

45% disapprove

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1297.xml?ReleaseID=1446

Pretty surprised by that tbh.

Same here. It could be wrong but Quinnipiac is usually pretty good and it doesn't look that ridiculous, I suppose.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,446
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4567 on: April 19, 2010, 02:21:12 pm »

Per Quinnipiac, Obama back at positive approval in Florida

50% approve

45% disapprove

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1297.xml?ReleaseID=1446

Pretty surprised by that tbh.

It's hard to figure. Is Obama gaining in the southeastern quadrant (Arkansas and Kentucky excepted) and losing some in the Rust Belt?

Sure, I have normed polls -- approval to up to 6% to estimate the vote, favorability to about 1% less than the likely vote... but Obama is doing significantly better in Texas than in Indiana -- same day and the same polling organization, which I would have never expected roughly 17 months after the election, and about as well in North Carolina (which he barely carried in 2008) as in Pennsylvania (which he carried decisively). Wisconsin glares with a one-state outfit (I accept college and university polls if the college or university isn't suspect -- like ultra-liberal Antioch College in Ohio or ultra-conservative Liberty University in Virginia).

34 states have had some sort of statewide poll, even if it is a "favorability" poll or a poll by a one-state operation.

Polls that I would most like to see:

New Jersey (size alone)
Georgia, Michigan (size, and only a favorability poll is out there for each)
Virginia (swing state)
South Carolina (strange things happening)
Oregon, Pennsylvania (I don't fully trust SurveyUSA)
Wisconsin (strange poll)
Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska (include its districts which vote differently) Tennessee, West Virginia (long time, no see)
 

 
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4568 on: April 19, 2010, 02:24:18 pm »


Gallup Obama National

Approve:  48 +1

Disapprove:  46 (u)

Logged
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,078
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.94, S: 1.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4569 on: April 19, 2010, 03:58:28 pm »

So, the second map on your posts is what you think the Presidential election would be? If so, you're saying that despite the fact Obama has had negative approvals in most of the Florida polls, some very negative, because he has a mere 50% approval there, he would win by 5-9 points. That doesn't make logical sense.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,446
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4570 on: April 19, 2010, 06:16:26 pm »

So, the second map on your posts is what you think the Presidential election would be? If so, you're saying that despite the fact Obama has had negative approvals in most of the Florida polls, some very negative, because he has a mere 50% approval there, he would win by 5-9 points. That doesn't make logical sense.

The screwy one is Texas 42% and Indiana 39%. I would not have expected that. But if Texas is genuine at 42%, Florida at 50% is not off the mark by much. My map shows Indiana out of reach in 2012 should things stay as they are, Texas surprisingly close, and Florida stronger than some Northern states that Obama won by 10%+ margins.   Strange things can and will happen.

Approval by "likely voters" is likely to be less than the percentage at the poll. For one thing, many voters may have to choose between two candidates that they disapprove of (think of 1976). Such voters might

1. Not vote
2. Vote for a third-party or independent candidate
3. Hold one's nose and vote for one or the other.

Option 1 increases the percentage of an incumbent's vote by reducing the popular vote without reducing the number of votes for the incumbent.

Option 2 does nothing to increase or decrease the number or percentage of votes for the incumbent.

Option 3 splits the difference. 

Nate Silver suggests that the break-even point for winning is 44% nationwide approval for an incumbent. Very rarely does a strong incumbent with approval in the 50%+ range face a strong challenger. Below 44% approval, a weak challenger has a chance (a weak Republican challenger would have defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980) and a strong one has an overwhelming chance of victory. I assume that what applies to the nation also applies individually to states, so if Obama has a 44% approval rating in North Dakota, he has about a 50-50 chance of winning. Below that the chance of winning drops precipitously to near 0%, and above that the chance of winning rises precipitously to 100%.

Since 1900, incumbents have won 13 of 18 Presidential elections in which they ran. Right now I can't calculate statistical significance, but I figure that there is something to it. Even a weak incumbent with huge faults -- the prime example George W. Bush in 2004 -- could have an approval below 50% and still win. He faced a weak challenger who ran an inept campaign.  To be sure, someone as adept as Obama in 2008 or Clinton in 1992 would have beaten Dubya... but neither was available.

The incumbent has plenty of news coverage, the ability to cut deals with local politicians (a highway project here, a water project there), the need to shore up political allies in trouble (it generally works for both if it is done wisely -- no scandals, of course), the ability to get advertising time to complement the news coverage, and such impressive perquisites as Air Force One and the Presidential Seal. He may have had the opportunity to appear where there has been a natural or man-made disaster and act Presidential. So long as  the economy  goes well, then it's hard for him to lose unless he has a scandal break.

Of course if he is incompetent, then none of that matters and is in fact is a detriment. If about 55% of the public thinks "... and this guy is President?" with derisive humor following, then everything associated with the Presidency reminds people why a majority want someone else riding on Air Force One, someone else making news conferences, and a different face appearing above the Presidential Seal on a podium.

I find a 50% approval of Obama in Florida hard to believe , just as I found recent 44% approvals in places like Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin hard to believe. But he is doing better in the South (except in Arkansas and Kentucky). Take good looks at Alabama, North Carolina, and Texas.

So here's how I norm approval polls to estimates of votes: because 44% is a break-even point for an incumbent (if not a challenger!)  I am treating those as 50% of the vote -- the 50% of the vote that matters, which does not include non-votes and wasted votes for third-party candidates. Add 6% for approval ratings between 39% and 45%, 5% for approval at 46%, 4% between 47% and 50%, 3% at 51% and 3% for 52% to 54%. Above 54% the incumbent needs no assistance because he will win the state by 10% or more, and at 39% or lower he is likely to lose the state by 10% or more.   
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4571 on: April 19, 2010, 08:12:27 pm »

I find a 50% approval of Obama in Florida hard to believe , just as I found recent 44% approvals in places like Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin hard to believe. But he is doing better in the South (except in Arkansas and Kentucky). Take good looks at Alabama, North Carolina, and Texas.

Could Florida's result be related to the number of retirees? Healthcare issues tend to resound with older voters, although perhaps many of them have insurance, so maybe not. Perhaps Alabama, North Carolina, Texas, etc have more people likely to benefit from public healthcare, whereas some of the northern states may have a greater proportion of people who already have insurance and don't want to see their tax dollars going towards that.

Just thinking... this sort of economic policy focus could be the realignment we speculate about every now and then. Recent elections have been focused on social issues - hence the South being strongly Republican and the North being strongly Democrat, but obviously between the GFC and Healthcare debates, perhaps people are focusing more on the economic debate. That would make the Democrats more competitive in the South and places like Kansas and other areas with more voters with below-average incomes, while making Republicans more competitive in places like New England. I'm probably talking rubbish, but just thought I'd put it out there for discussion.
Logged
Citizen (The) Doctor
ArchangelZero
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,181
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4572 on: April 19, 2010, 09:19:41 pm »

Do you all think if Obama flips Texas to Democrat (the largest surprise we could think of probably), should the Republican Party really reimagine themselves?
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,446
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4573 on: April 19, 2010, 10:38:13 pm »

I find a 50% approval of Obama in Florida hard to believe , just as I found recent 44% approvals in places like Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin hard to believe. But he is doing better in the South (except in Arkansas and Kentucky). Take good looks at Alabama, North Carolina, and Texas.

Could Florida's result be related to the number of retirees? Healthcare issues tend to resound with older voters, although perhaps many of them have insurance, so maybe not. Perhaps Alabama, North Carolina, Texas, etc have more people likely to benefit from public healthcare, whereas some of the northern states may have a greater proportion of people who already have insurance and don't want to see their tax dollars going towards that.

Just thinking... this sort of economic policy focus could be the realignment we speculate about every now and then. Recent elections have been focused on social issues - hence the South being strongly Republican and the North being strongly Democrat, but obviously between the GFC and Healthcare debates, perhaps people are focusing more on the economic debate. That would make the Democrats more competitive in the South and places like Kansas and other areas with more voters with below-average incomes, while making Republicans more competitive in places like New England. I'm probably talking rubbish, but just thought I'd put it out there for discussion.

The donut hole is one of the first things that seniors see being (partially) phased away through the 2010 legislation.

As it is, seniors pay the first $295 of prescription costs, 25% of that between $295 and $2700, and the entire amount between $2750 and $6254, before the government picks up 95% of the amount over $6155. People with chronic conditions (diabetes is a prime example) can have their money eaten.

It's worth noting that although Florida is near the national average in income, the rest of the South (including Texas)... is below the national average. Poverty itself is a health hazard in its own right. Poor people are likely to get better access to health care.

What is good for poor blacks is also good for poor whites. Obama did badly with poor Southern whites in 2008, most likely on "cultural" issues -- contrast Clinton and Carter.     

Logged
old timey villain
cope1989
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,741


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4574 on: April 19, 2010, 10:43:33 pm »

I find a 50% approval of Obama in Florida hard to believe , just as I found recent 44% approvals in places like Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin hard to believe. But he is doing better in the South (except in Arkansas and Kentucky). Take good looks at Alabama, North Carolina, and Texas.

Could Florida's result be related to the number of retirees? Healthcare issues tend to resound with older voters, although perhaps many of them have insurance, so maybe not. Perhaps Alabama, North Carolina, Texas, etc have more people likely to benefit from public healthcare, whereas some of the northern states may have a greater proportion of people who already have insurance and don't want to see their tax dollars going towards that.

Just thinking... this sort of economic policy focus could be the realignment we speculate about every now and then. Recent elections have been focused on social issues - hence the South being strongly Republican and the North being strongly Democrat, but obviously between the GFC and Healthcare debates, perhaps people are focusing more on the economic debate. That would make the Democrats more competitive in the South and places like Kansas and other areas with more voters with below-average incomes, while making Republicans more competitive in places like New England. I'm probably talking rubbish, but just thought I'd put it out there for discussion.

The donut hole is one of the first things that seniors see being (partially) phased away through the 2010 legislation.

As it is, seniors pay the first $295 of prescription costs, 25% of that between $295 and $2700, and the entire amount between $2750 and $6254, before the government picks up 95% of the amount over $6155. People with chronic conditions (diabetes is a prime example) can have their money eaten.

It's worth noting that although Florida is near the national average in income, the rest of the South (including Texas)... is below the national average. Poverty itself is a health hazard in its own right. Poor people are likely to get better access to health care.

What is good for poor blacks is also good for poor whites. Obama did badly with poor Southern whites in 2008, most likely on "cultural" issues -- contrast Clinton and Carter.     
haha "cultural issues". A nice way of saying that they didn't want to vote for the black guy.


Logged
Pages: 1 ... 178 179 180 181 182 [183] 184 185 186 187 188 ... 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