Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 18, 2019, 11:25:20 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (Primary) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 243 244 245 246 247 [248] 249 250 251 252 253 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1016018 times)
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6175 on: September 18, 2010, 09:17:36 am »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45%, u.

Disapprove 55%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 27%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 44%, -1.


[I'm having problems with my computer and have to re-install; I might miss a few days.]
Logged
5280
MagneticFree
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,398
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.97, S: -0.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6176 on: September 18, 2010, 09:27:03 am »

This entire thread is uber failure with pbrower2a in it.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,446
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6177 on: September 18, 2010, 08:26:56 pm »

Pbrower, how is a 44% approval in Colorado a pure toss-up but a 45% approval in Wisconsin is lean Democrat?

An incumbent normally has a 6% advantage over a challenger during a statewide campaign (Governor, US Senate, maybe a single-district House seat) or a Presidential election.  unless he implodes through scandals, extreme gaffes, or international debacles. This advantage is not enough to rescue a failure, and it might not apply when the incumbent faces a third-party nominee on his side of the political spectrum.

The President gets plenty of attention from the media and his campaign can usually compliment the President's statements. The challenger or someone running for the open seat has no such luck.
Lets just pretend for a second that your theory makes sense...
45+6=51
That would put a Republican at around 48%. That would give Obama about a 3 point lead. According to your own "rules", lean Democrat is 5-9% margin, which is well above 3 points.

Let's start with this obvious fact: if 8 of the last 13 incumbent Presidents won re-election (I stop there because of Grover Cleveland winning the popular vote but losing the electoral vote), then incumbency must offer some advantage. It's not likely that such is pure chance. Those who lost had huge faults as a President or at least as a campaigner.

William Howard Taft was simply not temperamentally suited to be President. Herbert Hoover bungled the economic meltdown that bedeviled his Presidency. Gerald Ford had never run for any statewide  office and had never been elected Vice-President, so he didn't have a clue on how to win a Presidential election as had the usual Senators and Governors. Jimmy Carter had practically no legislative achievements. George H. W. Bush achieved about everything that anyone could ever have expected him to achieve in four years and he could never explain why he should be re-elected. Heck, Ulysses S. Grant, Calvin Coolidge, and George W. Bush could be re-elected. 

Incumbency for the President has perks  -- Air Force One, plenty of attention from the media and control of the message, the ability to take advantage of economic upturns and good international news. The incumbent usually knew how to win the first time and can ordinarily resuscitate the campaign team from the previous election. His advertising can complement events and Presidential speeches.  Those are not enough to rescue a bad President.

Nate Silver had a study at 538.com (no longer there) that showed how incumbent Senators and Governors did between 2006 and 2009, inclusively. He noted that at an approval rating of 44% the incumbent Governor or Senator had roughly a 50% chance of winning re-election, and that the chance of winning dropped off sharply; above 44% the incumbent's chance of winning rose rapidly. To be sure, one incumbent with more than 50% approval at the start of the campaign was defeated, but that was Senator George Allen, who sticks out. Then again, few incumbent politicians make the same huge gaffe the "Macaca moment" or have staffers who beat up a heckler. Sure, Allen lost to a strong opponent, but barely.

Perfect storms can happen. Many of the blatant losers were in big trouble before their campaigns for re-election began. Corzine was in the high 30s and lost; about everyone thought that he was in trouble. Sometimes low polling numbers reflect that a candidate is arrogant (Santorum), suspect (Stevens, Burns), or just not up to the job. Such is hard to recover from. Sure, there was Governor Jennifer Grantholm of Michigan who won by a landslide after having an approval rating near 40%... but the economy seemed to improve and the Democrats had a wave election to her benefit. The 6% average gain applies to those incumbents 

Bad campaigning can happen -- but I don't expect that from President Obama. He had a formidable campaign apparatus that has been in mothballs... but count on it to be out again. He will be running on his record, and he has some legitimate achievements. He may have bet that his health care reform will be more popular in November 2012 than in February 2010; so far the disapproval ratings for it have been falling.   

The pattern holds for true for incumbents with 35%, 50%, or 65% approvals alike,  so it is not recursion to the mean as one might expect (that is, everyone tending toward 50%). Incumbents almost always campaign, whether they are as far behind as John Corzine or as far ahead as Jon Huntsman; such is habit.

The pattern also applies to incumbent Presidents. Most try to win re-election by winning the popular vote, and eight of the last thirteen succeeded at it. Maybe they can shift some votes with a few well-timed and placed speeches.  Some who disapprove simply forget to vote. But it is usually gain. Maybe Carter lost support because of the Iranian hostage crisis and stagflation, but he was in trouble anyway.

President Obama can lose. He is not in the zone in which he is immune from bad economic news or some string of bad luck not of his doing. But look at the pattern that I suggest; he will actively campaign if he must, and he will campaign as it most solidifies his wins or gives him a chance to win what he must. He's not going to do much to campaign in Vermont if his approval rating there is 63% and he is not going to campaign in Oklahoma if his approval there is 27%.  But if it is 47% in Ohio, he will take plenty of trips to the Buckeye State.





 
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 #6178 on: September 18, 2010, 08:31:10 pm »

Nate Silver had a study at 538.com (no longer there) that showed how incumbent Senators and Governors did between 2006 and 2009, inclusively. He noted that at an approval rating of 44% the incumbent Governor or Senator had roughly a 50% chance of winning re-election, and that the chance of winning dropped off sharply; above 44% the incumbent's chance of winning rose rapidly.

You are either very fond of lying, or too stupid to remember that you've been corrected about this 10 times now.

Never ever has Nate Silver said anything of the sort.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6179 on: September 18, 2010, 08:31:51 pm »

Pbrower, how is a 44% approval in Colorado a pure toss-up but a 45% approval in Wisconsin is lean Democrat?

An incumbent normally has a 6% advantage over a challenger during a statewide campaign (Governor, US Senate, maybe a single-district House seat) or a Presidential election.  unless he implodes through scandals, extreme gaffes, or international debacles. This advantage is not enough to rescue a failure, and it might not apply when the incumbent faces a third-party nominee on his side of the political spectrum.

The President gets plenty of attention from the media and his campaign can usually compliment the President's statements. The challenger or someone running for the open seat has no such luck.
Lets just pretend for a second that your theory makes sense...
45+6=51
That would put a Republican at around 48%. That would give Obama about a 3 point lead. According to your own "rules", lean Democrat is 5-9% margin, which is well above 3 points.

Let's start with this obvious fact: if 8 of the last 13 incumbent Presidents won re-election (I stop there because of Grover Cleveland winning the popular vote but losing the electoral vote), then incumbency must offer some advantage. It's not likely that such is pure chance. Those who lost had huge faults as a President or at least as a campaigner.

William Howard Taft was simply not temperamentally suited to be President. Herbert Hoover bungled the economic meltdown that bedeviled his Presidency. Gerald Ford had never run for any statewide  office and had never been elected Vice-President, so he didn't have a clue on how to win a Presidential election as had the usual Senators and Governors. Jimmy Carter had practically no legislative achievements. George H. W. Bush achieved about everything that anyone could ever have expected him to achieve in four years and he could never explain why he should be re-elected. Heck, Ulysses S. Grant, Calvin Coolidge, and George W. Bush could be re-elected. 

Incumbency for the President has perks  -- Air Force One, plenty of attention from the media and control of the message, the ability to take advantage of economic upturns and good international news. The incumbent usually knew how to win the first time and can ordinarily resuscitate the campaign team from the previous election. His advertising can complement events and Presidential speeches.  Those are not enough to rescue a bad President.

Nate Silver had a study at 538.com (no longer there) that showed how incumbent Senators and Governors did between 2006 and 2009, inclusively. He noted that at an approval rating of 44% the incumbent Governor or Senator had roughly a 50% chance of winning re-election, and that the chance of winning dropped off sharply; above 44% the incumbent's chance of winning rose rapidly. To be sure, one incumbent with more than 50% approval at the start of the campaign was defeated, but that was Senator George Allen, who sticks out. Then again, few incumbent politicians make the same huge gaffe the "Macaca moment" or have staffers who beat up a heckler. Sure, Allen lost to a strong opponent, but barely.

Perfect storms can happen. Many of the blatant losers were in big trouble before their campaigns for re-election began. Corzine was in the high 30s and lost; about everyone thought that he was in trouble. Sometimes low polling numbers reflect that a candidate is arrogant (Santorum), suspect (Stevens, Burns), or just not up to the job. Such is hard to recover from. Sure, there was Governor Jennifer Grantholm of Michigan who won by a landslide after having an approval rating near 40%... but the economy seemed to improve and the Democrats had a wave election to her benefit. The 6% average gain applies to those incumbents 

Bad campaigning can happen -- but I don't expect that from President Obama. He had a formidable campaign apparatus that has been in mothballs... but count on it to be out again. He will be running on his record, and he has some legitimate achievements. He may have bet that his health care reform will be more popular in November 2012 than in February 2010; so far the disapproval ratings for it have been falling.   

The pattern holds for true for incumbents with 35%, 50%, or 65% approvals alike,  so it is not recursion to the mean as one might expect (that is, everyone tending toward 50%). Incumbents almost always campaign, whether they are as far behind as John Corzine or as far ahead as Jon Huntsman; such is habit.

The pattern also applies to incumbent Presidents. Most try to win re-election by winning the popular vote, and eight of the last thirteen succeeded at it. Maybe they can shift some votes with a few well-timed and placed speeches.  Some who disapprove simply forget to vote. But it is usually gain. Maybe Carter lost support because of the Iranian hostage crisis and stagflation, but he was in trouble anyway.

President Obama can lose. He is not in the zone in which he is immune from bad economic news or some string of bad luck not of his doing. But look at the pattern that I suggest; he will actively campaign if he must, and he will campaign as it most solidifies his wins or gives him a chance to win what he must. He's not going to do much to campaign in Vermont if his approval rating there is 63% and he is not going to campaign in Oklahoma if his approval there is 27%.  But if it is 47% in Ohio, he will take plenty of trips to the Buckeye State.

 

And you whistle in graveyards too.  
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6180 on: September 19, 2010, 10:45:50 am »



Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45%, u.

Disapprove 55%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 28%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 44%, u.


[I will be trying to reload today.]
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,529
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6181 on: September 19, 2010, 11:51:05 am »

The hating on pbrower2 is hilarious. He has the right idea, but his system isn't all the great.
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6182 on: September 19, 2010, 03:30:16 pm »

The hating on pbrower2 is hilarious. He has the right idea, but his system isn't all the great.

You have no idea how much of a terrible hack he is.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,529
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6183 on: September 19, 2010, 03:32:39 pm »

The hating on pbrower2 is hilarious. He has the right idea, but his system isn't all the great.

You have no idea how much of a terrible hack he is.

Yeah, that lunatic keeps showing Obama getting more than 1 electoral vote in the 2012 election.

/sarcasm
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6184 on: September 19, 2010, 03:35:24 pm »

The hating on pbrower2 is hilarious. He has the right idea, but his system isn't all the great.

You have no idea how much of a terrible hack he is.

Yeah, that lunatic keeps showing Obama getting more than 1 electoral vote in the 2012 election.

/sarcasm

How old are you?
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,529
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6185 on: September 19, 2010, 03:51:29 pm »

The hating on pbrower2 is hilarious. He has the right idea, but his system isn't all the great.

You have no idea how much of a terrible hack he is.

Yeah, that lunatic keeps showing Obama getting more than 1 electoral vote in the 2012 election.

/sarcasm

How old are you?

17 going on 18. I'm a bit immature, I know, but the hate on pbrower2 is a bit immature as well. I'm probably biased on this, but I fail to see how pbrower2 is a hack, seeing as how your only argument for him being one (that I can see) is that he is not a Republican.
Logged
Jbrase
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,008
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6186 on: September 19, 2010, 04:04:51 pm »

17 going on 18. I'm a bit immature, I know, but the hate on pbrower2 is a bit immature as well. I'm probably biased on this, but I fail to see how pbrower2 is a hack, seeing as how your only argument for him being one (that I can see) is that he is not a Republican.
No, the argument is how he seems to think negative approval ratings across the country translate into him winning big in 2012. Then there is his air hub thing, and that "no matter how crappy a job, the incumbent will always see 6%+ magically appear". Then there is his tendency to use a poll that clearly shows an unusually high approval, but firmly reject using a poll that shows an unusually low approval, calling it out as a bad poll.
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6187 on: September 19, 2010, 04:07:38 pm »

That's spot on.

On an unrelated note, I hate his color scheme. BTW, I couldn't care less what he is registered as. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty close to leaving the GOP myself. I like to vote in the primaries, but they are getting to be a little much with their anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Your age is about what I thought it was, TBH.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,847
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6188 on: September 19, 2010, 04:09:42 pm »

17 going on 18. I'm a bit immature, I know, but the hate on pbrower2 is a bit immature as well. I'm probably biased on this, but I fail to see how pbrower2 is a hack, seeing as how your only argument for him being one (that I can see) is that he is not a Republican.
No, the argument is how he seems to think negative approval ratings across the country translate into him winning big in 2012. Then there is his air hub thing, and that "no matter how crappy a job, the incumbent will always see 6%+ magically appear". Then there is his tendency to use a poll that clearly shows an unusually high approval, but firmly reject using a poll that shows an unusually low approval, calling it out as a bad poll.

     I remember that he once called a poll of Georgia with Obama at 35% approval a push poll, giving no justification or explanation whatsoever.
Logged
Poundingtherock
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 917
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6189 on: September 19, 2010, 04:29:32 pm »

Actually, I'd regard Pbrower as less of a hack as some of the Republicans here.

At least his viewpoint makes sense.  His belief is that Obama will get 10% more than his approval rating.  The logic is that some of those who disapprove of Obama are left-leaning indies who would vote for him anyway when the opponent is a Republican.

I disagree with the logic but it's still logic.  Pbrower may be an out of touch extreme liberal but he's not a hack.

Now, some of the "fiscally conservative"/Northeastern Republicans here are total hacks.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,529
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6190 on: September 19, 2010, 04:36:02 pm »

17 going on 18. I'm a bit immature, I know, but the hate on pbrower2 is a bit immature as well. I'm probably biased on this, but I fail to see how pbrower2 is a hack, seeing as how your only argument for him being one (that I can see) is that he is not a Republican.
No, the argument is how he seems to think negative approval ratings across the country translate into him winning big in 2012. Then there is his air hub thing, and that "no matter how crappy a job, the incumbent will always see 6%+ magically appear". Then there is his tendency to use a poll that clearly shows an unusually high approval, but firmly reject using a poll that shows an unusually low approval, calling it out as a bad poll.

1. It depends, his 2012 predictions are bogus, with the current approval ratings and unemployment numbers, I can tell you that, but I could see his predictions being right if say, Palin was nominated. If the GOP nominates someone with half a brain, it's going to be a bit closer.

2. I don't necessarily see 6+ percent extra going for an incumbent, I could see maybe a 3% bonus, as a lot of progressives and left-leaning independents disapprove of his job but would vote for him in any case come 2012.

3. I agree with the hack sentiment here, obvious bias. Although, I could see this being acceptable by coincidence if he only took polls from one certain polling organization (say, Rasmussen, or Gallup).

That's spot on.

On an unrelated note, I hate his color scheme. BTW, I couldn't care less what he is registered as. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty close to leaving the GOP myself. I like to vote in the primaries, but they are getting to be a little much with their anti-Muslim rhetoric.

His color scheme? I prefer the Green to Yellow, Jbrase's maps make the situation seem far too anti-Obama IMHO. If pbrower counted states with 39% or less approval as a shade of red then I think it would be perfect.

I could see myself voting for a FisCon one day, as it's ridiculous to claim that one economic system works under ever circumstance, but I could never vote for a SoCon. We can debate about economics all day but when it comes to SoCon's, the argument is usually just bigotry or disdain.
Logged
Dgov
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,558
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6191 on: September 19, 2010, 05:30:41 pm »

I'm kind of curious here as to how the 44% Magic number works out.  There's a big difference between an incumbent with a 44-56 rating than one with a 44-44 or 44-20 one.

Also, Pbrower states that 8 of the last 13 Incumbents running fore re-election won.  Not only is this a small sample size, but 8 of 13 is only 61%, which is not exactly a solid number if you consider that people who have already won the presidency have proven that they can win the presidency (i.e. someone who has already made a free-throw is statistically more likely to be able to make another one than someone who hasn't).

On top of that, the sample studies incumbent Governors and Senators from 2006-2009, a rather narrow time-frame that coincides with two wave elections, but not a single incumbent presidential one.  To give an example (using Gallup polls), during their first midterms the last 11 presidents have had an average approval rating of 57%, and 6 of 9 won re-election (Kennedy and Johnson didn't run for re-election).  Among presidents polling at below 44%, both have won re-election (Reagan and Clinton), and among Presidents polling above 50%, 4 of 5 won re-election (The Elder Bush losing).  For the other 2, polling in-between 50% and 44%, they both lost (Carter and Ford).  That data suggests that there is no sort of linear correlation between Presidential approval numbers at approximately this time and their re-election chances.
Logged
Special K
GWBFan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,291


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6192 on: September 19, 2010, 06:05:14 pm »

I agree with Scifiguy....the pbrower2 bashing is a bit much.  It's getting useless and unnecessary.  I disagree with his predictions, just as I'm sure he'd disagree with mine, and we both have that right.  But just because he predicts the election a certain way means he's a hack?  Get over it.....Let him have his fun predicting things the way he wants and posting about it.....we all like to do that.

For that matter, bashing anyone.....even just over the internet....is pretty stupid.  Can't we all just get along?  We're all pretty much nerds, based on how much time and effort we all spend here (look at some your post counts...), we should all know how harassment and criticism and a few unkind words here & there can hurt!!
Logged
Dgov
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,558
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6193 on: September 19, 2010, 06:22:41 pm »

For that matter, bashing anyone.....even just over the internet....is pretty stupid.  Can't we all just get along?  We're all pretty much nerds, based on how much time and effort we all spend here (look at some your post counts...), we should all know how harassment and criticism and a few unkind words here & there can hurt!!

What?  People can be cruel an vicious over the internet?  Who would have though? Smiley
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,446
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6194 on: September 19, 2010, 08:29:14 pm »

I'm kind of curious here as to how the 44% Magic number works out.  There's a big difference between an incumbent with a 44-56 rating than one with a 44-44 or 44-20 one.

Of course an incumbent with so high a profile as Governor or Senator, let alone President of the United States, is unlikely to ever have a 44-20 split in approval and disapproval.   Such implies someone largely unknown, for example a Congressional Representative from District 6 of 20 running for the seat of a retiring Senator.  

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course it is a small sample; that is all that we have, and I don't want to go back to the 19th Century when politics were very different from what they are now. But I can explain the five losses; I have yet to see any dissent with my explanations. Of course 8 of 13 isn't exactly the same as the record that Larry Bird had with sinking free throws (in essence, don't foul Larry Bird in the latter minutes of a basketball game).

It is possible that with a stronger opponent than John Kerry, George W, Bush would have lost his re-election bid, and of course I wouldn't be discussing a 7-6 split or even an 8-5 split (Kerry winning re-election), let alone a 7-7 split (Kerry losing re-election). On the other side, Gerald Ford came close to winning re-election. We aren't dealing with alternative history -- but I am certainly dealing with human factors.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The estimated 6% gain is from roughly the late winter or early spring of 2012 to the first Tuesday in November 2012.  Maybe I should be more precise and say that "if the polls are like this in early 2012 (approval rating), I estimate this electoral result in November 2012". Polls are themselves estimates, and they can bounce around for no apparent reason.

Polls will reflect many things that themselves can change. One is the economy. So if unemployment decreases steadily and real wages rise for a change, then such will manifest itself in the polls. If Afghanistan becomes "quieter" without some American military or diplomatic debacle, the President Obama will face polls that look better for him. If people start seeing benefits from the Health Care Reform, then polls will reflect that.  On the other side, should we get a double-dip recession, should Afghanistan "blow up" on America, or should the President have a scandal erupt, then polls will also show that.  I make no prediction that such things will happen, for the simple reason that I lack the pretended powers of an astrologer! But the rest?

I can say this -- although the incumbent President could conceivably lose the Presidency if his approval rating is around 50% six months before the election. It is possible that he might endure an economic collapse, a scandal, or a military or diplomatic debacle. It is also possible that the incumbent President might be an inept campaigner (which I can't imagine with Obama 2012, in view of the Obama 2008 campaign) or might be unable to show what he would do in a Second Act.  But this is certain: no President ever bets on good luck rescuing an embattled Presidency.  President Obama will call his achievements to attention, such as they are. He did keep his campaign promises, didn't he? He got a big legislative agenda passed, didn't he?  America is involved in at least one fewer war than it started with -- right? He will campaign if he must, and any challenger will have to undo doubts that the electorate must have. As an incumbent President, Barack Obama will have the advantage of being better known.

Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6195 on: September 19, 2010, 08:56:24 pm »

Actually, I'd regard Pbrower as less of a hack as some of the Republicans here.

At least his viewpoint makes sense.  His belief is that Obama will get 10% more than his approval rating.  The logic is that some of those who disapprove of Obama are left-leaning indies who would vote for him anyway when the opponent is a Republican.

I disagree with the logic but it's still logic.  Pbrower may be an out of touch extreme liberal but he's not a hack.

Now, some of the "fiscally conservative"/Northeastern Republicans here are total hacks.

Do you even know what a hack is?
Logged
Dgov
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,558
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6196 on: September 19, 2010, 09:49:47 pm »

 Maybe I should be more precise and say that "if the polls are like this in early 2012 (approval rating), I estimate this electoral result in November 2012". Polls are themselves estimates, and they can bounce around for no apparent reason.

Sorry, this was the base of my issues.  I Thought you were predicting re-election as of now.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,446
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6197 on: September 19, 2010, 10:06:02 pm »

 Maybe I should be more precise and say that "if the polls are like this in early 2012 (approval rating), I estimate this electoral result in November 2012". Polls are themselves estimates, and they can bounce around for no apparent reason.

Sorry, this was the base of my issues.  I Thought you were predicting re-election as of now.

Maybe I need to clarify that in my next post of how I interpret the most recent polls.

No way can I predict how the polls of early March 2012 will be, but I can show how the current polls suggest that President Obama would do if the polls of the day were to be much the same on such a date as March 1, 2012. After then we will have more of an idea of who the opponent will be (which of course would shape how some states go).
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,446
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6198 on: September 20, 2010, 09:23:22 am »

New York State Survey of 500 Likely Voters

Conducted September 16, 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?

     36% Strongly approve
     22% Somewhat approve
       8% Somewhat disapprove
     33% Strongly disapprove
      0% Not sure

Maryland Survey of 750 Likely Voters

Conducted September 15, 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?

 

   42% Strongly approve
   14% Somewhat approve
     6% Somewhat disapprove
   36% Strongly disapprove
     1% Not sure

Vermont Survey of 500 Likely Voters

Conducted September 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?

   

    41% Strongly approve
    22% Somewhat approve
      7% Somewhat disapprove
    30% Strongly disapprove
      0% Not sure







Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60%-69% or higher disapproval, 90% if >70%); 90% red if >70%
40-43% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
44% with Disapproval Higher: 40% 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
DC, what else could you expect?


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

 

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

MY CURRENT PREDICTION OF THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

(before any campaigning begins in earnest)Sad

assuming no significant changes before early 2012 -- snicker, snicker!




District of Columbia, assumed to be about a 90% win for Obama, 3                  
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater  159
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin   61
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 83
white                        too close to call  46
pale blue                  Republican  under 5%   23
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin  66
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   114  



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 52% or 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

 This model applies only to incumbents, who have plenty of advantages but not enough to rescue an unqualified failure.

......




Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,529
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6199 on: September 20, 2010, 09:51:10 am »

Still no VA polls from any polling organization?

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 243 244 245 246 247 [248] 249 250 251 252 253 ... 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