Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 17, 2020, 04:33:00 pm
News: 2020 U.S. Senate Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 334 335 336 337 338 [339] 340 341 342 343 344 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1028168 times)
Penelope
Scifiguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,525
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8450 on: August 07, 2011, 10:31:36 pm »

Pbrower2a, I'm not sure that anything has changed, poll wise.  If Obama has troughed to the maximum point, he's troughed higher than any president, except GW Bush (and yes, there were other factors in that case).  GW Bush was re-elected.

Eisenhower, Nixon, and Kennedy, if we're talking about first term troughs (which is all we can be talking about).

I should have said since Watergate, but we obviously have no idea what JFK's numbers would have been in 1964. 



Ah, then I agree with you.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8451 on: August 07, 2011, 10:37:13 pm »

Pbrower2a, I'm not sure that anything has changed, poll wise.  If Obama has troughed to the maximum point, he's troughed higher than any president, except GW Bush (and yes, there were other factors in that case).  GW Bush was re-elected.

Eisenhower, Nixon, and Kennedy, if we're talking about first term troughs (which is all we can be talking about).

I should have said since Watergate, but we obviously have no idea what JFK's numbers would have been in 1964. 



Ah, then I agree with you.

Both Eisenhower and Nixon were off their lows, though. 
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,525
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8452 on: August 07, 2011, 10:40:32 pm »

Pbrower2a, I'm not sure that anything has changed, poll wise.  If Obama has troughed to the maximum point, he's troughed higher than any president, except GW Bush (and yes, there were other factors in that case).  GW Bush was re-elected.

Eisenhower, Nixon, and Kennedy, if we're talking about first term troughs (which is all we can be talking about).

I should have said since Watergate, but we obviously have no idea what JFK's numbers would have been in 1964. 



Ah, then I agree with you.

Both Eisenhower and Nixon were off their lows, though. 

Eisenhower, yes. Nixon? Not exactly.

From the Gallup Graph, it appears that Nixon was right around his trough. He had a pretty long lukewarm period at 48-50% in late 1971, with a small bump in Oct. 1971. But he was most certainly not "off his low".
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8453 on: August 08, 2011, 08:57:57 am »

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 46, -1.

Disapprove 52%,+1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 22%, -2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 40%, u.

I think a bad pro-Obama sample slipped out today, but I'm not seeing any real downward trend.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8454 on: August 08, 2011, 10:06:44 am »

Pbrower2a, I'm not sure that anything has changed, poll wise.  If Obama has troughed to the maximum point, he's troughed higher than any president, except GW Bush (and yes, there were other factors in that case).  GW Bush was re-elected.

Eisenhower, Nixon, and Kennedy, if we're talking about first term troughs (which is all we can be talking about).

I should have said since Watergate, but we obviously have no idea what JFK's numbers would have been in 1964. 



Ah, then I agree with you.

Both Eisenhower and Nixon were off their lows, though. 

Eisenhower, yes. Nixon? Not exactly.

From the Gallup Graph, it appears that Nixon was right around his trough. He had a pretty long lukewarm period at 48-50% in late 1971, with a small bump in Oct. 1971. But he was most certainly not "off his low".

Well, he was.  Nixon's first term low was both shallow and late.  It was late June 1971, and 48%.  That was his lowest first term number.  He didn't improve greatly for the remainder of 1971, but he was always off that.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,829
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8455 on: August 08, 2011, 10:29:40 am »

In any event, the activities of the White House "plumbers" did little harm to the approval ratings of President Nixon until deep into the second term, and only when the legal issues caved in upon Nixon. But if the such deeds as the Watergate burglary and the violation of the files of Daniel Ellsberg didn't damage Nixon, then the economic mess unfolding about as Nixon resigned would have gotten to him. Economic realities have more direct effect upon approval of the President than just about anything else.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,525
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8456 on: August 08, 2011, 10:31:44 am »

Pbrower2a, I'm not sure that anything has changed, poll wise.  If Obama has troughed to the maximum point, he's troughed higher than any president, except GW Bush (and yes, there were other factors in that case).  GW Bush was re-elected.

Eisenhower, Nixon, and Kennedy, if we're talking about first term troughs (which is all we can be talking about).

I should have said since Watergate, but we obviously have no idea what JFK's numbers would have been in 1964. 



Ah, then I agree with you.

Both Eisenhower and Nixon were off their lows, though. 

Eisenhower, yes. Nixon? Not exactly.

From the Gallup Graph, it appears that Nixon was right around his trough. He had a pretty long lukewarm period at 48-50% in late 1971, with a small bump in Oct. 1971. But he was most certainly not "off his low".

Well, he was.  Nixon's first term low was both shallow and late.  It was late June 1971, and 48%.  That was his lowest first term number.  He didn't improve greatly for the remainder of 1971, but he was always off that.

Yes, but "off his lows" would seem to imply that he's way above them. It's very clear that the trough was in mid-late 1971 for Nixon.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 51,987
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8457 on: August 08, 2011, 12:13:00 pm »

Gallup is 43-48 (+1, -2) today.

They also have a state-by-state approval map for the first half of 2011:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148874/Obama-Job-Approval-Higher-States.aspx

Interesting that Georgia, Mississippi and Arizona are so favorable for Obama, all other states are about as expected.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,829
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8458 on: August 08, 2011, 12:58:24 pm »

Gallup is 43-48 (+1, -2) today.

They also have a state-by-state approval map for the first half of 2011:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148874/Obama-Job-Approval-Higher-States.aspx

Interesting that Georgia, Mississippi and Arizona are so favorable for Obama, all other states are about as expected.

This may not be my favored map, but based upon the Gallup averages I can show all states.



Note that this is an average over time, and it may average events better than the short-term polls. Or believe what you want. This does not supersede any of my earlier polls.

Approval 53% or higher 70% red (90% if approval is above 80% -- DC only
Approval 50% or higher 50% red
Approval under 50% but higher than disapproval 30% red (tie 20%)
Approval 44%-49% but less than disapproval -- white
Approval 40%-43% but disapproval lower than 50% (green 20%)
Approval 40%-43% but disapproval  50% or higher 40% blue
Approval under 40% 60% blue (90% if under 30%)


Don't ask me to explain Oregon, New Hampshire, Mississippi, or South Dakota.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8459 on: August 08, 2011, 03:44:07 pm »

We are not seeing Obama trough yet.
Logged
Bull Moose Base
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8460 on: August 08, 2011, 03:49:00 pm »

We are not seeing Obama trough yet.

How the Hell would we know that?
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8461 on: August 08, 2011, 03:52:46 pm »


He's not too far off his lows, and his low was still relatively high (on Gallup).
Logged
Buh her emails!
diskymike44
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,382


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8462 on: August 08, 2011, 04:01:26 pm »

yeah he is up to 43 now on gallup
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8463 on: August 08, 2011, 05:28:11 pm »

In any event, the activities of the White House "plumbers" did little harm to the approval ratings of President Nixon until deep into the second term, and only when the legal issues caved in upon Nixon. But if the such deeds as the Watergate burglary and the violation of the files of Daniel Ellsberg didn't damage Nixon, then the economic mess unfolding about as Nixon resigned would have gotten to him. Economic realities have more direct effect upon approval of the President than just about anything else.

Well, nobody knew about the Plumbers in 1971.  Smiley  Watergate wasn't until 1972, so it didn't affect his 1971 numbers.  Gallup didn't bother to poll in some of the late summer/early fall of 1972.
Logged
mondale84
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,307
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -3.30

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8464 on: August 08, 2011, 10:08:46 pm »



Don't ask me to explain Oregon, New Hampshire, Mississippi, or South Dakota.

But, Mississippi has been sticking out over the past year for these weird approval ratings...what is going on in the Magnolia State? Any locals care to enlighten the ignorant masses?
Logged
The Ex-Factor
xfactor99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,077
Viet Nam


Political Matrix
E: -5.42, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8465 on: August 09, 2011, 01:48:30 am »

Racial polarization.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,829
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8466 on: August 09, 2011, 05:49:03 am »


Mississippi is extremely polarized in race and politics. To an extent not known elsewhere, the Republican Party is effectively the White People's Party and the Democratic Party is the Black People's Party. Mississippi has places with black majorities, and the polarization allows machine-boss politics characteristic of large cities even in small towns. The idea that one could vote for the other Party so that one might sweep out the crooks and under-performers is out of the question in Mississippi.  Such fosters corruption and incompetence irrespective of who the majority is. Stories of corruption among black elected officials are commonplace (white people are no better because machine politics is commonplace among whites, too), and that makes white people dread any black politician even if he isn't a corrupt member of a political machine.

The experience that  white Mississippians have with black politicians is very poor, so guess what Barack Obama reminds them of? The corrupt and incompetent hick-town black politicians who easily get re-elected nit whose political careers end when they get caught by the legal system, federal or state, for leasing a car and diverting it for use by a family member who has no official duties, collecting or soliciting bribes, or simply embezzling from the local treasury.

If Mississippi white people voted as do white people in Kentucky, to be sure a very conservative state in its politics, then Mississippi would have gone for President Obama and would never vote for so racist a politician as Trent Lott. About 40% of white Kentuckians vote Democratic... but the state has few blacks, so about the only Democratic nominees for President that Kentuckians have voted for in the last  fifty years are Southern white moderates (LBJ, Carter once, Clinton)  But Kentucky has few blacks, so the last northern liberal that Kentucky voted for was John F. Kennedy.   
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8467 on: August 09, 2011, 08:51:37 am »
« Edited: August 09, 2011, 08:53:46 am by J. J. »

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45, -1.

Disapprove 55%, +3.

"Strongly Approve" is at 21%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, +2.

Now I am seeing a downward trend, if these numbers hold.
Logged
Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar
amcculloum
Full Member
***
Posts: 114


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: 4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8468 on: August 09, 2011, 11:09:35 am »



Don't ask me to explain Oregon, New Hampshire, Mississippi, or South Dakota.

But, Mississippi has been sticking out over the past year for these weird approval ratings...what is going on in the Magnolia State? Any locals care to enlighten the ignorant masses?

Must be bad polling sampling.  Mississippi is one of the few states where nationally whites are almost as much a block vote as blacks.  CNN exit polling showed 88% of whites voted for McCain, 98% of blacks voted for Obama.  I agree with pbrower2a that on a national level, the Repubs are the party of the whites and the Dems are the party of the blacks, but that is not accurate at the state level, where I do not believe there has been a Republican majority in either house since reconstruction.  In fact, in most rural areas of the state, white dems dominate local government.

From my observation, attitudes from either race have not changed.  I would expect at least 88% of whites to vote Republican and at least 95% of blacks to vote Obama.  I think this year's election will have a slightly higher ratio of white to black voters due to the lack of novelty of a black candidate (maybe 65-30 white, up from 62-33 in 2008), as a result, I would expect an easy Rep victory, probably along the lines of 58-42 or 59-41 up from 56-43 in 2008.

pbrower2a is also right that if Mississippi whites were as moderate as whites in other border south states, Mississippi would be consistently blue (or red on this site).
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 51,987
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8469 on: August 09, 2011, 12:09:26 pm »

Gallup down to 40-50 [-3, +2] again.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 51,987
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8470 on: August 09, 2011, 12:33:11 pm »

PPP - DailyKos - SEIU:

47% Approve
50% Disapprove

51% Favorable
46% Unfavorable

Public Policy Polling, 1000 Registered Voters, MoE 3.1%, August 4, 2011 - August 7, 2011

http://dailykos.com/weeklypolling/2011/8/4
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,829
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8471 on: August 09, 2011, 12:33:40 pm »



Don't ask me to explain Oregon, New Hampshire, Mississippi, or South Dakota.

But, Mississippi has been sticking out over the past year for these weird approval ratings...what is going on in the Magnolia State? Any locals care to enlighten the ignorant masses?

Must be bad polling sampling.  Mississippi is one of the few states where nationally whites are almost as much a block vote as blacks.  CNN exit polling showed 88% of whites voted for McCain, 98% of blacks voted for Obama.  I agree with pbrower2a that on a national level, the Repubs are the party of the whites and the Dems are the party of the blacks, but that is not accurate at the state level, where I do not believe there has been a Republican majority in either house since reconstruction.  In fact, in most rural areas of the state, white dems dominate local government.

From my observation, attitudes from either race have not changed.  I would expect at least 88% of whites to vote Republican and at least 95% of blacks to vote Obama.  I think this year's election will have a slightly higher ratio of white to black voters due to the lack of novelty of a black candidate (maybe 65-30 white, up from 62-33 in 2008), as a result, I would expect an easy Rep victory, probably along the lines of 58-42 or 59-41 up from 56-43 in 2008.


It could also be that white Mississippians could recognize that even if Barack Obama is a black man, he does not fit their fears of race-based cronyism and economic radicalism. He could win the state if military/diplomatic issues or natural disasters  are on center-stage (and positive for the President) or if the GOP candidate scares people on Social Security or Medicare.
But that is a gigantic "if". The last northern liberal to win the state was John F. Kennedy, and before that FDR. (I don't consider Adlai Stevenson much more liberal than Dwight Eisenhower, especially on racial issues. Blacks would have voted for Eisenhower in Mississippi... with another huge "if" attached, as they just didn't vote in Mississippi in those days).

It could also be bad sampling. Take a good look at Oregon, which would make sense if Gallup over-sampled eastern Oregon, which is about as conservative as Idaho.  
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 51,987
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8472 on: August 09, 2011, 12:45:57 pm »

Marist/McClatchy Newspapers Poll:

44% Approve
46% Disapprove

52% Favorable
41% Unfavorable

This survey of 1,000 adults was conducted on August 2nd through August 4th, 2011. Adults 18 years of age and older residing in the continental United States were interviewed by telephone. Telephone numbers were selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation. The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. To increase coverage, this land-line sample was supplemented by respondents reached through random dialing of cell phone numbers. The two samples were then combined. Results are statistically significant within 3.0 percentage points. There are 807 registered voters. The results for this subset are statistically significant within 3.5 percentage points. The error margin increases for crosstabulations.

Link

CBS/NYT Poll:

48% Approve
47% Disapprove

This poll was conducted by telephone on August 2-3, 2011 among 960 adults nationwide who were first interviewed in two polls: a CBS News/New York Times Poll conducted June 24-28, 2011 and a CBS News Poll conducted July 15-17, 2011. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Aug11a-all.pdf
Logged
Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar
amcculloum
Full Member
***
Posts: 114


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: 4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8473 on: August 09, 2011, 01:04:44 pm »


It could also be that white Mississippians could recognize that even if Barack Obama is a black man, he does not fit their fears of race-based cronyism and economic radicalism. He could win the state if military/diplomatic issues or natural disasters  are on center-stage (and positive for the President) or if the GOP candidate scares people on Social Security or Medicare.
But that is a gigantic "if". The last northern liberal to win the state was John F. Kennedy, and before that FDR. (I don't consider Adlai Stevenson much more liberal than Dwight Eisenhower, especially on racial issues. Blacks would have voted for Eisenhower in Mississippi... with another huge "if" attached, as they just didn't vote in Mississippi in those days).

It could also be bad sampling. Take a good look at Oregon, which would make sense if Gallup over-sampled eastern Oregon, which is about as conservative as Idaho.  

I think there may be something to a candidate who pledged to eliminate or severely cut back on Medicaid or Social Security (in a Ron Paul-type mode), but that is a long shot.  Rand Paul won in Kentucky by promising big cuts and that state would probably be more spooked by a cutting Social Sec/Medicaid threat than MS would.  Best case for Obama under any circumstance is probably a 5-7 point loss.  I also have to disagree with you on the 1960 election, if memory serves correct, Mississippi's EVs went to unpledged electors, not Kennedy.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,829
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8474 on: August 09, 2011, 03:27:32 pm »
« Edited: August 09, 2011, 03:49:13 pm by pbrower2a »

Technically speaking this is not a Presidential approval poll, so its results will not appear on my approval map. But it has some interesting consequences.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CONC_0809.pdf

(Save this page if you want to see the results for North Carolina further down the page).

Conclusions for a critical state in 2012:

1. Coloradans don't like the Debt Ceiling deal -- by a wide margin.

2. They seem to exculpate President Obama and blame Dubya and Congressional Republicans.

3. They want a stimulus, but just don't call it a stimulus.

4. People want the super-rich to face higher taxes to solve the deficit and don't believe in "supply-side" economics anymore.

5. President Obama can get away with offering to renounce the Debt Ceiling commitments if he must... but the Republicans are stuck with the consequences.

6. Republicans can expect to lose some of Congressional seats in Colorado in 2012. It is impossible to be stuck with a raw deal for constituents -- or worse, opposing an unpopular  piece of legislation by claiming that it isn't hard-line enough -- and not face very bad effects.

7. In case anyone shouts "bias" -- the sample voted 41-50, McCain/Obama, which is about the same as the gap between McCain and Obama voters in 2008.

If things remain the same in Colorado as this poll suggests, Colorado is going to offer ugly results for Republicans in 2012.  

 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 334 335 336 337 338 [339] 340 341 342 343 344 ... 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