Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 11, 2019, 06:45:31 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 ... 181 182 183 184 185 [186] 187 188 189 190 191 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1022963 times)
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,525
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4625 on: April 27, 2010, 02:38:47 pm »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


.....

Silver has an extensive database that I cannot here reproduce. For Senate and gubernatorial (statewide) races in 2006 to 2000 (this includes Corzine in New Jersey in an odd-year election) , the pattern generally holds  -- add 7 to early polls for any gubernatorial or Senate incumbent, and one gets a  fair estimate of the eventual vote share for those incumbents not in races with significant third-party (about 10% if the total vote) opposition.  The pattern holds among winners and losers alike. Although it is possible for an incumbent to lose even from above 50% approval in early polls (one did -- George Allen, and that resulted from his breakdown as a candidate), almost everyone gained significantly, some recovering even from early polls showing as low as 40% approval (Menendez, New Jersey, US Senate, 2006). Some ran inept campaigns; some had scandals break. But the pattern should be obvious: incumbents have advantages against challengers even if the incumbent is a turkey. If the incumbent is very unpopular to begin with or has incredibly bad luck he may fail  Does anyone think that if America has another 1929-style meltdown of the economy or that America gets ensnared in a military or diplomatic debacle that President Obama would  not get re-elected?

Why would the Presidency be different?  It is 50 statewide elections, one district-wide election, and five Congressional seats.  I figure that the effects would be muted; an incumbent  Governor or Senator might get the chance to run up the score (vote percentage) if his approval rating is 70% to begin with; an incumbent President would surely turn attention elsewhere -- to where it can do him more good. In other words, if an incumbent President has 62% support in Texas and 48% support in Michigan and Michigan is the only real chance of winning (obviously not the 2012 election!), then guess where the President makes lots of campaign trips and guess which states' TV stations get an advertising blitz.  The States elect the President; voters don't.

OK. Approval ratings ordinarily go down for the President unless there is some glorious event that he can ride. President Obama has had no such event. The opposition starts carping, and independent voters feel that they have not gotten exactly what they voted for. Not all legislation that the President promotes is wildly popular and indeed may have well-organized opposition.

An incumbent politician of any kind has already shown the ability to win an election. He also gets much media attention, for good or bad. If he is good he will get desirable attention. He has access to the perquisites of office and can get incredible attention. Can the President botch those assets? Sure. If President Obama dusts off the formidable campaign organization that he had in 2008 he will be very difficult to beat. He doesn't need enthusiasm from more than the base; "sort-of-okay" is enough to win against a challenger who doesn't have a strong campaign, doesn't have quite the media access and doesn't use it spectacularly well, and has to make promises that the President can counter.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,627
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4626 on: April 27, 2010, 04:03:22 pm »

The "approval rating plus six" theory is one of the funniest things I've ever seen on the forum, up there with some of Naso's stuff.

I wouldn't discount it, actually.

Carter's approval rating, for example, was 37% prior to 1980's election. He got 41% of the vote, an increase of 4%, and that probably would have been higher had Anderson not split the anti-Reagan vote...

Bush's was 34% before the 1992 election and he ended up with 3% of the vote. Clinton's was 54% before the 1996 one, but I'd imagine Perot skewed things for both somewhat.

Bush II's was 48% before 2004's election, and he ended up with almost 51%, which is an increase of 3%.

Oh, and Ford's last recorded before November 1976 was 45% and he ended up with ~48%, although the 48% figure is from July so make your own judgement on how relevant that is. Again, that a 3% increase.

So, 6% might be a tad much, but an increase of 3-4% seems reasonable. A cursory look through Gallup seemed to show that, interestingly enough, the only President whose vote matched their approval exactly was Reagan in 1984 with 58%.


*shrug*

 I'm not an expert, but it's not far-fetched in principle that vote shares can exceed approval ratings.



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 #4627 on: April 27, 2010, 06:44:21 pm »

Why is that Pbrower just ignores the posts where someone calls him out?
Logged
ScottM
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 299


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: 4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4628 on: April 27, 2010, 07:17:13 pm »

The "approval rating plus six" theory is one of the funniest things I've ever seen on the forum, up there with some of Naso's stuff.

I wouldn't discount it, actually.

Carter's approval rating, for example, was 37% prior to 1980's election. He got 41% of the vote, an increase of 4%, and that probably would have been higher had Anderson not split the anti-Reagan vote...

Bush's was 34% before the 1992 election and he ended up with 3% of the vote. Clinton's was 54% before the 1996 one, but I'd imagine Perot skewed things for both somewhat.

Bush II's was 48% before 2004's election, and he ended up with almost 51%, which is an increase of 3%.

Oh, and Ford's last recorded before November 1976 was 45% and he ended up with ~48%, although the 48% figure is from July so make your own judgement on how relevant that is. Again, that a 3% increase.

So, 6% might be a tad much, but an increase of 3-4% seems reasonable. A cursory look through Gallup seemed to show that, interestingly enough, the only President whose vote matched their approval exactly was Reagan in 1984 with 58%.


*shrug*

 I'm not an expert, but it's not far-fetched in principle that vote shares can exceed approval ratings.





I certainly believe that an incumbent has an advantage; just look at the success rate of members of Congress running for re-election. A slight improvement over approval ratings probably shouldn't be surprising, but, yes 6% is no doubt a bit much.

I don't think we should overlook the fact that in some elections you have stronger challengers than other. If the challenger is stronger in a particular year, there's probably a reduced advantage.

One serious mistake that I think is being made, though, is the assumption that you can add the same amount to every State's approval rating. Some States are naturally more friendly than others to a particular party. South Dakota, for example won't be as friendly to Obama as would maybe Vermont.

As for Georgia, BTW, Al Gore performed 5.4 points better nationally than in Georgia, John Kerry performed 6.9 points better nationally, and Barrack Obama performed 6 points better nationally. So unless Obama actually manages to win 56% of the vote give or take a bit, he's not going to win Georgia. And I don't see anyone managing to win 56% of the vote anytime soon in the current political environment.
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 #4629 on: April 27, 2010, 07:26:36 pm »


I hestitate to reproduce what you had actually written above, as I do not want anyone accidentally mistaking that big mass of "LOL?" as my own.

If you want me to seriously rebut it, here's what I've got for you:

The article you reproduced from Silver talks about head-to-head matchups, and the improvement incumbents get later on in the campaign. It doesn't talk about "approval" polls at all, which is what you're trying to use to divine future election results. You are attempting to make some kind of awkward apples-to-oranges comparison that has no historical or statistical basis in reality.

If you need hard data/proof, again, please reference the election results of the last 100 years or so, the most recent of which I cut and paste for you above.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,525
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4630 on: April 27, 2010, 08:24:44 pm »

The "approval rating plus six" theory is one of the funniest things I've ever seen on the forum, up there with some of Naso's stuff.

I wouldn't discount it, actually.

Carter's approval rating, for example, was 37% prior to 1980's election. He got 41% of the vote, an increase of 4%, and that probably would have been higher had Anderson not split the anti-Reagan vote...

Bush's was 34% before the 1992 election and he ended up with 3% of the vote. Clinton's was 54% before the 1996 one, but I'd imagine Perot skewed things for both somewhat.

Bush II's was 48% before 2004's election, and he ended up with almost 51%, which is an increase of 3%.

Oh, and Ford's last recorded before November 1976 was 45% and he ended up with ~48%, although the 48% figure is from July so make your own judgement on how relevant that is. Again, that a 3% increase.

So, 6% might be a tad much, but an increase of 3-4% seems reasonable. A cursory look through Gallup seemed to show that, interestingly enough, the only President whose vote matched their approval exactly was Reagan in 1984 with 58%.


*shrug*

 I'm not an expert, but it's not far-fetched in principle that vote shares can exceed approval ratings.





I certainly believe that an incumbent has an advantage; just look at the success rate of members of Congress running for re-election. A slight improvement over approval ratings probably shouldn't be surprising, but, yes 6% is no doubt a bit much.

I don't think we should overlook the fact that in some elections you have stronger challengers than other. If the challenger is stronger in a particular year, there's probably a reduced advantage.

One serious mistake that I think is being made, though, is the assumption that you can add the same amount to every State's approval rating. Some States are naturally more friendly than others to a particular party. South Dakota, for example won't be as friendly to Obama as would maybe Vermont.

As for Georgia, BTW, Al Gore performed 5.4 points better nationally than in Georgia, John Kerry performed 6.9 points better nationally, and Barrack Obama performed 6 points better nationally. So unless Obama actually manages to win 56% of the vote give or take a bit, he's not going to win Georgia. And I don't see anyone managing to win 56% of the vote anytime soon in the current political environment.

The 6% (Silver says 7%) is no hard and fast rule. It's an average, and it does not apply to every statewide election.  Some candidates can make fools of themselves (former Senator George "Macaca" Allen, whose staffers beat up a heckler) or find themselves entangled in disgusting scandals that pull them down. One can't predict campaign meltdowns or the eruption of scandals in still-competitive races. Some incumbents fare better than 7%; go figure.

If Presidential elections are really fifty statewide elections, does the 6% gain seem likely everywhere for an incumbent as it does for an incumbent Governor or Senator? Probably no. If one is Carl Levin or Kay Bailey Hutchinson, perfectly fitting the sensibilities of one's State, then one might have an approval rating of 60% going into a Senatorial race  and end up with 67% of the vote.  One's own race is the only one that one can have any effect on. But would an incumbent President who has a 60% approval rating in Rhode Island or Utah put appreciable effort and resources into winning such a state by a larger margin?

Of course not! Such would be a waste of his organization's funds and his time as a campaigner. Piling on a percentage would be worthless; the difference between either state by an inflated margin would be pointless.

What if the incumbent has an approval rating of 35% -- would he do much campaigning there?

Of course not! Such would be a waste of his organization's funds and his time as a campaigner. The statewide race in question is beyond help.

But 52% in Iowa or South Carolina?  An incumbent wants to put such a state out of the margin of error and solidify a win. 47%? It is in the margin of error and might be pushed into the victory column. The incumbent likely makes appearances where they might count, and the campaign pumps in the money for campaign ads.  

The current 41% approval rating in Georgia for President Obama likely translates into about a 47% share at most of the vote in Georgia, which is not enough to win. That is a 6% margin just slightly larger than the reality of 2008 in Georgia. Obama abandoned efforts to win Georgia when some states seemed to slip into the danger zone.

Will 2012 be different? Of course in the reality of nationwide approval of the President. Some issues might work well for Obama in some states and badly in others. How well the economy is will decide whether Obama can avoid losing the Rust Belt states to a GOP nominee who might offer an economic ideas that imply more employment -- at vastly-reduced wages and harsher terms of employment. But if the economy is doing well, even Ohio might be impossible for Republicans to pick up.
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 #4631 on: April 28, 2010, 08:00:03 am »

The 6% (Silver says 7%) is no hard and fast rule. It's an average, and it does not apply to every statewide election.  Some candidates can make fools of themselves (former Senator George "Macaca" Allen, whose staffers beat up a heckler) or find themselves entangled in disgusting scandals that pull them down. One can't predict campaign meltdowns or the eruption of scandals in still-competitive races. Some incumbents fare better than 7%; go figure.

Oops! You're still confusing head-to-head matchups with approval ratings!

The current 41% approval rating in Georgia for President Obama likely translates into about a 47% share at most of the vote in Georgia, which is not enough to win. That is a 6% margin just slightly larger than the reality of 2008 in Georgia. Obama abandoned efforts to win Georgia when some states seemed to slip into the danger zone.

Oops! You're still confusing head-to-head matchups with approval ratings!


You better hope it is, because actual history shows "plus six" to be incorrect. But why should history stop us when we can just torture Nate Silver's logic into something that "feels" believable to those who want to believe it?
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4632 on: April 28, 2010, 09:06:39 am »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47% u

Disapprove 52% u


"Strongly Approve" is at 31%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 41%, -1.

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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4633 on: April 28, 2010, 10:47:42 am »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47% u

Disapprove 52% u

"Strongly Approve" is at 31%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 41%, -1.



All the polls point to a convergence in the "strongly" numbers.  The reports of a wildly enthused GOP base and a depressed Democratic one may have been grossly exaggerated.  All indications are that the midterm elections this year will be highly competitive.  It is critical that the GOP not continue to lose seats.  Such would sound the death knell for that party.  

 Not necessarily. The GOP continued to lose seats in 1934, 2 years after the dems dominated them. They were always there, but were just in a position of dormancy for some years and then gained ground in the late 1940's and 1950's. But I think you're right- the election will be very close. It will not be a Republican blowout. The Obama coalition is getting fired up too.
Logged
old timey villain
cope1989
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,741


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4634 on: April 28, 2010, 11:45:38 am »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47% u

Disapprove 52% u

"Strongly Approve" is at 31%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 41%, -1.



All the polls point to a convergence in the "strongly" numbers.  The reports of a wildly enthused GOP base and a depressed Democratic one may have been grossly exaggerated.  All indications are that the midterm elections this year will be highly competitive.  It is critical that the GOP not continue to lose seats.  Such would sound the death knell for that party.  

 Not necessarily. The GOP continued to lose seats in 1934, 2 years after the dems dominated them. They were always there, but were just in a position of dormancy for some years and then gained ground in the late 1940's and 1950's. But I think you're right- the election will be very close. It will not be a Republican blowout. The Obama coalition is getting fired up too.

The Republican Party may very well to continue to exist ... but to be electorally successful, its policies must change significantly.  If it continues to stubbornly cling to the ideals of the past, then it shall go the way of the mastodon.

To appreciate the dire nature the party is in, one must examine its potential 2012 candidates.  Sarah Palin?  A seditious rube, whose qualifications for the Presidency are non-existent.  Mitt Romney?  A Wall Street insider - and he is considered to be their best candidate.  Mike Huckabee?  Too regional, too polarizing, too rural.  Mitch Daniels?  One of Dubya's minions.  George H.W. Bush?  He couldn't afford a credible Second Act.  Tabasco sauce?  Flavorful - but burns the throat.

The last poll, done by CNN, between Obama and Romney yields the following: Obama with 53% and Romney with 45%.  Add 6% to Obama's numbers, and you will get an accurate picture of the 2012 election.  Such is a landslide on the scale of Eisenhower's in 1956.  But I see his political skills more along the lines of Ronald Reagan.  Obama plays to win, and his campaign apparatus, which has been in mothballs, will come out.  When he is out of the White House and can finally campaign on his legislative successes, we will see his approvals - and his party's numbers - rise.

The 2010 Senate races ought to yield many surprises.  South Carolina?  Jim DeMint's approvals are sub-par.  Obama's, on the other hand, are surprisingly good for such a rock-ribbed conservative state.  The exploits of Governor Sanford may have put the Palmetto State into a Republican fatigue.  Georgia?  Only time will tell.  

 As a Georgia resident I can tell you that the races will be very competitive this year. Sonny's party is unpopular now due to their massive budget cuts on things like education, and the leading dem challenger, ex governor Roy Barnes, who paved the way for the first Repub governor since reconstruction, is actually competitive or leading against all Republican candidates. I think Johnny Isakson will get a run for his money, but will come out on top. There are not many strong dem challengers for his senate seat. Georgia is now too big and too diverse to be a one party state.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4635 on: April 28, 2010, 12:36:36 pm »

He has been at 47% everyday this week. That seems like a steady number for him. Rasmussen was the most conservative poll during the 2008 Presidential Election and the most accurate. They had Obama winning 52-46 and to my recollection that's what it came out to. The more conservative the better let me tell you.
Logged
memphis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,990


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4636 on: April 28, 2010, 12:38:27 pm »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47% u

Disapprove 52% u

"Strongly Approve" is at 31%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 41%, -1.



All the polls point to a convergence in the "strongly" numbers.  The reports of a wildly enthused GOP base and a depressed Democratic one may have been grossly exaggerated.  All indications are that the midterm elections this year will be highly competitive.  It is critical that the GOP not continue to lose seats.  Such would sound the death knell for that party.  

 Not necessarily. The GOP continued to lose seats in 1934, 2 years after the dems dominated them. They were always there, but were just in a position of dormancy for some years and then gained ground in the late 1940's and 1950's. But I think you're right- the election will be very close. It will not be a Republican blowout. The Obama coalition is getting fired up too.

The Republican Party may very well to continue to exist ... but to be electorally successful, its policies must change significantly.  If it continues to stubbornly cling to the ideals of the past, then it shall go the way of the mastodon.

To appreciate the dire nature the party is in, one must examine its potential 2012 candidates.  Sarah Palin?  A seditious rube, whose qualifications for the Presidency are non-existent.  Mitt Romney?  A Wall Street insider - and he is considered to be their best candidate.  Mike Huckabee?  Too regional, too polarizing, too rural.  Mitch Daniels?  One of Dubya's minions.  George H.W. Bush?  He couldn't afford a credible Second Act.  Tabasco sauce?  Flavorful - but burns the throat.

The last poll, done by CNN, between Obama and Romney yields the following: Obama with 53% and Romney with 45%.  Add 6% to Obama's numbers, and you will get an accurate picture of the 2012 election.  Such is a landslide on the scale of Eisenhower's in 1956.  But I see his political skills more along the lines of Ronald Reagan.  Obama plays to win, and his campaign apparatus, which has been in mothballs, will come out.  When he is out of the White House and can finally campaign on his legislative successes, we will see his approvals - and his party's numbers - rise.

The 2010 Senate races ought to yield many surprises.  South Carolina?  Jim DeMint's approvals are sub-par.  Obama's, on the other hand, are surprisingly good for such a rock-ribbed conservative state.  The exploits of Governor Sanford may have put the Palmetto State into a Republican fatigue.  Georgia?  Only time will tell.  

 As a Georgia resident I can tell you that the races will be very competitive this year. Sonny's party is unpopular now due to their massive budget cuts on things like education, and the leading dem challenger, ex governor Roy Barnes, who paved the way for the first Repub governor since reconstruction, is actually competitive or leading against all Republican candidates. I think Johnny Isakson will get a run for his money, but will come out on top. There are not many strong dem challengers for his senate seat. Georgia is now too big and too diverse to be a one party state.
FYI: You've been punk'd.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4637 on: April 28, 2010, 12:50:20 pm »

I lovet that pic of Muhammad. Did you see the 200th episodes? Those guys are the best.
Logged
ConservativeIllini
Full Member
***
Posts: 104


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4638 on: April 28, 2010, 01:16:56 pm »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47% u

Disapprove 52% u

"Strongly Approve" is at 31%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 41%, -1.


It is critical that the GOP not continue to lose seats.  Such would sound the death knell for that party.  

I'd be willing to give you 10-1 odds on $50 that the GOP doesn't lose seats in the midterms.  Yes, most elections will be competitive, but it looks likely the GOP will pick up 20 seats at a minimum.

And if you think Demint is going to lose, you're just plain wrong.
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 #4639 on: April 28, 2010, 01:17:21 pm »


Someday, I anticipate Pbrower will step out, pull off his mask, and we'll find out he was really just Al or Sam Spade or someone all along. Sure, we'll be pissed at first and feel a little betrayed or whatever, but in the end, we'll all just be relieved that Pbrower was nothing more than a figment of someone's imagination.
Logged
Poundingtherock
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 917
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4640 on: April 28, 2010, 01:45:26 pm »

Rasmussen Arizona

Obama: 38/59
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4641 on: April 28, 2010, 02:24:06 pm »


The Republican Party may very well to continue to exist ... but to be electorally successful, its policies must change significantly.  If it continues to stubbornly cling to the ideals of the past, then it shall go the way of the mastodon.

To appreciate the dire nature the party is in, one must examine its potential 2012 candidates.  Sarah Palin?  A seditious rube, whose qualifications for the Presidency are non-existent.  Mitt Romney?  A Wall Street insider - and he is considered to be their best candidate.  Mike Huckabee?  Too regional, too polarizing, too rural.  Mitch Daniels?  One of Dubya's minions.  George H.W. Bush?  He couldn't afford a credible Second Act.  Tabasco sauce?  Flavorful - but burns the throat.

The last poll, done by CNN, between Obama and Romney yields the following: Obama with 53% and Romney with 45%.  Add 6% to Obama's numbers, and you will get an accurate picture of the 2012 election.  Such is a landslide on the scale of Eisenhower's in 1956.  But I see his political skills more along the lines of Ronald Reagan.  Obama plays to win, and his campaign apparatus, which has been in mothballs, will come out.  When he is out of the White House and can finally campaign on his legislative successes, we will see his approvals - and his party's numbers - rise.

The 2010 Senate races ought to yield many surprises.  South Carolina?  Jim DeMint's approvals are sub-par.  Obama's, on the other hand, are surprisingly good for such a rock-ribbed conservative state.  The exploits of Governor Sanford may have put the Palmetto State into a Republican fatigue.  Georgia?  Only time will tell.  

Actually, excepting this weeks number, the GOP has been 8-10 points ahead of the Democrats on the generic ballot.  This week it dropped to six, but that still might be some standard fluctuation.  While Obama's strongly approve numbers have improved, his negatives have still stayed in the same area and still are much higher.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4642 on: April 28, 2010, 03:02:09 pm »

Bobby Jindal and Mitch Daniels have higher numbers.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,525
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4643 on: April 28, 2010, 04:03:02 pm »

The 6% (Silver says 7%) is no hard and fast rule. It's an average, and it does not apply to every statewide election.  Some candidates can make fools of themselves (former Senator George "Macaca" Allen, whose staffers beat up a heckler) or find themselves entangled in disgusting scandals that pull them down. One can't predict campaign meltdowns or the eruption of scandals in still-competitive races. Some incumbents fare better than 7%; go figure.

Oops! You're still confusing head-to-head matchups with approval ratings!

I am working with what is available. The re is no head-to-head matchup yet. Obama might lose to some idealized Generic Republican as adept at exuding optimism and transcending regional differences as Ronald Reagan.  You tell  me -- does that candidate exist? We have no state named Shangri-La. 

{quote]
The current 41% approval rating in Georgia for President Obama likely translates into about a 47% share at most of the vote in Georgia, which is not enough to win. That is a 6% margin just slightly larger than the reality of 2008 in Georgia. Obama abandoned efforts to win Georgia when some states seemed to slip into the danger zone.

Oops! You're still confusing head-to-head matchups with approval ratings![/quote]

That derives from Rasmussen's latest poll of likely voters.  It says that without significant changes in the political climate in Georgia, Obama loses Georgia in 2012. I can see how he could fare far better.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You better hope it is, because actual history shows "plus six" to be incorrect. But why should history stop us when we can just torture Nate Silver's logic into something that "feels" believable to those who want to believe it?
[/quote][/quote]

Silver said much the same about incumbent Presidents in a different blogpost. He has far more of a base of data with gubernatorial and Senate races.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,525
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4644 on: April 28, 2010, 05:22:24 pm »

Arkansas State Survey of 500 Likely Voters
Conducted April 26, 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?

27% Strongly approve
8% Somewhat approve
12% Somewhat disapprove
51% Strongly disapprove
0% Not sure



Mixed approval and favorability (the latter, Arkansas, Michigan, and Ohio 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
56-59%: 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

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





deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater  142
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin  12
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 92
white                        too close to call  40
pale blue                  Republican  under 5%  43
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin   45
deep blue                 Republican over 10%
 55  

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.








[/quote]
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4645 on: April 28, 2010, 05:40:44 pm »

Yea if 3 ppl are running instead of 2. If he isn't at 49% you can right him off as well as any other president in such a situation. People don't vote for those that haven't done well according to them.
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 #4646 on: April 28, 2010, 05:47:05 pm »

PPP has him at 45.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,355


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4647 on: April 28, 2010, 07:04:18 pm »

I can't believe that pbrower took what should be a news and information thread and turned it into over 300 pages of unintentional comedy goldmine.
Logged
ScottM
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 299


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: 4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4648 on: April 28, 2010, 07:24:43 pm »

I can't believe that pbrower took what should be a news and information thread and turned it into over 300 pages of unintentional comedy goldmine.

I've not even surprised by that and I haven't been here very long. Tongue
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4649 on: April 29, 2010, 06:02:23 am »

I put him on ignore.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 181 182 183 184 185 [186] 187 188 189 190 191 ... 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