Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 22, 2020, 10:47:54 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 ... 50 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59 60 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1028550 times)
pogo stick
JewishConservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1350 on: July 09, 2009, 11:34:02 am »

I think we can all agree that with these approval numbers, Utah is no longer in play for Obama.
Logged
Calvin and Hobbes
catmusic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 675
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1351 on: July 09, 2009, 12:22:26 pm »

I think we can all agree that with these approval numbers, Utah is no longer in play for Obama.

Utah never was in play for him. Utah is Yoo-tah and it is going to stay that way.
Logged
Ronnie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,891
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1352 on: July 09, 2009, 12:40:39 pm »

Why is Gallup so different from Rasmussen?  Is it the Adult vs. Likely voters thing?
Logged
Farage
Elvis Republican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 419
Cape Verde


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1353 on: July 09, 2009, 02:04:45 pm »

Minnesota Preview
 
Tomorrow we're releasing a poll looking at how Minnesota voters view Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, and Tim Pawlenty and how Obama does in a head to head against the Republicans.

There is some good news for Republicans in the numbers, but here are a couple key points:

-Only 6% of respondents who say they approve of Obama's job performance indicated they would support Pawlenty against him- not much of a 'home field' advantage for the state's Governor.

-As for Palin, well, all I can say is Goldwater.
Logged
Farage
Elvis Republican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 419
Cape Verde


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1354 on: July 09, 2009, 02:09:44 pm »

a bad news from texas ...
Job Approval / Disapproval
Gov. Perry: 42 / 32
Pres. Obama: 43 / 46

2010 Governor: Republican Primary
Rick Perry 38%, Kay Bailey Hutchison 26%

2010 Governor: Democratic Primary
Kinky Friedman 12%, Leticia Van de Putte 7%

If Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison resigns from the Senate to run for Governor and there is a special election to fill her Senate seat, which of the following candidates would you vote for, or haven't you thought enough about it to have an opinion?

John Sharp (D) 9%, David Dewhurst (R) 9%, Bill White (D) 6%, Greg Abbot (R) 5%

2012 President
Obama 36%, Romney 34%
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1355 on: July 09, 2009, 02:10:23 pm »

Why is Gallup so different from Rasmussen?  Is it the Adult vs. Likely voters thing?

Probably. Many people who don't really know much about politics are generally Democrats (as to why, I don't know). However, if you don't vote, then your opinion of the President is irrelevant in my opinion. While interesting, it doesn't really matter because they don't vote and thus don't hold him accountable.
Logged
Farage
Elvis Republican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 419
Cape Verde


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1356 on: July 09, 2009, 02:13:08 pm »

If the 2012 presidential election were held today, which of the following would you vote for, or havenít
you thought enough about it to have an opinion?
1. Barack Obama 36% 34% (Registered voters)
2. Mitt Romney 34% 39%
3. Donít know 30% 27%
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,354


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1357 on: July 09, 2009, 02:17:09 pm »

Obama is down to 51% in Rassy and down to  56% in the RCP average.

Don't worry, Dems, I'm sure that Obama is as invincible as you've all told us for months.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,619
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1358 on: July 09, 2009, 02:19:56 pm »

Obama is down to 51% in Rassy and down to  56% in the RCP average.

Don't worry, Dems, I'm sure that Obama is as invincible as you've all told us for months.

I'm not worried considering Saint Reagan was sitting at 35% in Gallup as of January 1983
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,354


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1359 on: July 09, 2009, 02:23:52 pm »

Obama is down to 51% in Rassy and down to  56% in the RCP average.

Don't worry, Dems, I'm sure that Obama is as invincible as you've all told us for months.

I'm not worried considering Saint Reagan was sitting at 35% in Gallup as of January 1983

Saint Reagan's won because the economy recovered in the second half of '83.  So Obama should be fine if the next election doesn't happen until 2017.
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 #1360 on: July 09, 2009, 02:28:28 pm »

Obama is down to 51% in Rassy and down to  56% in the RCP average.

Don't worry, Dems, I'm sure that Obama is as invincible as you've all told us for months.

I'm not worried considering Saint Reagan was sitting at 35% in Gallup as of January 1983

Saint Reagan's won because the economy recovered in the second half of '83.  So Obama should be fine if the next election doesn't happen until 2017.
I don't see how the economy would take that long to recover when almost every group of economists has predicted the recovery to start in 2010...
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,354


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1361 on: July 09, 2009, 03:53:20 pm »

Obama is down to 51% in Rassy and down to  56% in the RCP average.

Don't worry, Dems, I'm sure that Obama is as invincible as you've all told us for months.

I'm not worried considering Saint Reagan was sitting at 35% in Gallup as of January 1983

Saint Reagan's won because the economy recovered in the second half of '83.  So Obama should be fine if the next election doesn't happen until 2017.
I don't see how the economy would take that long to recover when almost every group of economists has predicted the recovery to start in 2010...

The same economists who didn't see the crash coming?  The same economists who now have to admit their stimulus projections were wrong because they underestimated the recession?

And when the ysay the recession will end, they mean GDP will stop literally shrinking.  That doesn't mean they are predicting recovery.

In 1984 the economy grew at a 5.8% pace.  For 1983 it grew at a 7.7% pace.  There is nothing like that on the horizon.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,812
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1362 on: July 09, 2009, 04:51:19 pm »

The same economists who didn't see the crash coming?  The same economists who now have to admit their stimulus projections were wrong because they underestimated the recession?

And when the ysay the recession will end, they mean GDP will stop literally shrinking.  That doesn't mean they are predicting recovery.

In 1984 the economy grew at a 5.8% pace.  For 1983 it grew at a 7.7% pace.  There is nothing like that on the horizon.

Well, I guess the only thing that's left to do for Obama is to appoint you next January as Bernanke's succesor.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,354


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1363 on: July 09, 2009, 05:07:41 pm »

The same economists who didn't see the crash coming?  The same economists who now have to admit their stimulus projections were wrong because they underestimated the recession?

And when the ysay the recession will end, they mean GDP will stop literally shrinking.  That doesn't mean they are predicting recovery.

In 1984 the economy grew at a 5.8% pace.  For 1983 it grew at a 7.7% pace.  There is nothing like that on the horizon.

Well, I guess the only thing that's left to do for Obama is to appoint you next January as Bernanke's succesor.

It wouldn't be a bad move, though I don't think Bernanke is the problem.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,354


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1364 on: July 09, 2009, 05:08:17 pm »

The same economists who didn't see the crash coming?  The same economists who now have to admit their stimulus projections were wrong because they underestimated the recession?

And when the ysay the recession will end, they mean GDP will stop literally shrinking.  That doesn't mean they are predicting recovery.

In 1984 the economy grew at a 5.8% pace.  For 1983 it grew at a 7.7% pace.  There is nothing like that on the horizon.

Well, I guess the only thing that's left to do for Obama is to appoint you next January as Bernanke's succesor.

Yes, I'd be a real booster for consumer confidence.

And I don't think Bernanke is the problem.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,812
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1365 on: July 09, 2009, 05:29:23 pm »

The same economists who didn't see the crash coming?  The same economists who now have to admit their stimulus projections were wrong because they underestimated the recession?

And when the ysay the recession will end, they mean GDP will stop literally shrinking.  That doesn't mean they are predicting recovery.

In 1984 the economy grew at a 5.8% pace.  For 1983 it grew at a 7.7% pace.  There is nothing like that on the horizon.

Well, I guess the only thing that's left to do for Obama is to appoint you next January as Bernanke's succesor.

It wouldn't be a bad move, though I don't think Bernanke is the problem.

I like your humility.
Logged
DariusNJ
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 416


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1366 on: July 09, 2009, 05:40:27 pm »


I'm pretty sure most of the 30% who didn't give an answer are Republicans, so not to worry.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,847
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1367 on: July 09, 2009, 05:53:10 pm »

Obama is down to 51% in Rassy and down to  56% in the RCP average.

Don't worry, Dems, I'm sure that Obama is as invincible as you've all told us for months.

I'm not worried considering Saint Reagan was sitting at 35% in Gallup as of January 1983

Saint Reagan's won because the economy recovered in the second half of '83.  So Obama should be fine if the next election doesn't happen until 2017.
I don't see how the economy would take that long to recover when almost every group of economists has predicted the recovery to start in 2010...

The same economists who didn't see the crash coming?  The same economists who now have to admit their stimulus projections were wrong because they underestimated the recession?

And when they say the recession will end, they mean GDP will stop literally shrinking.  That doesn't mean they are predicting recovery.

In 1984 the economy grew at a 5.8% pace.  For 1983 it grew at a 7.7% pace.  There is nothing like that on the horizon.

I have only a BA in economics, and I saw this meltdown coming. Real estate prices can't continue to overshoot incomes indefinitely, and rip-off lending eventually wrecks borrowers so that they must scale back their consumption to the barest necessities of life after they exhaust their assets and creditors find people un-creditworthy.  The downsizing of our industrial base was certain to result in a damaging imbalance of payments with a resulting debasement of currency.

I expected this one to be far worse than the effects of the stagflation of the middle-to-late 1970s. All that would keep it from being as bad as that of 1929-1933 was New Deal reforms and Great Society programs that would prevent bank runs, ensure that retirees have some income, and that people would have the equivalent of food stamps. I just couldn't think of any means in which to take advantage of the situation.  The stagflation of the 1970s resulted from inflation in energy prices that drove the price of everything else up; this one suggests major losses of American capital.
Logged
DariusNJ
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 416


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1368 on: July 09, 2009, 06:02:29 pm »

CNN Poll:

61% approve, 37% disapprove

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/07/08/rel10j.pdf
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,943
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1369 on: July 09, 2009, 06:04:28 pm »


...*waits for a response from a Republican*...
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1370 on: July 09, 2009, 06:16:35 pm »

I dont think we will see unemployment fall significantly until around 2014-2015.  The problem is that you need a year of growth of around 5%-6% to significantly drop the unemployment rate and I dont see growth going higher than maybe 1%-2% in the next four years.  That wont be enough to reduce the unemployment rate. 
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,354


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1371 on: July 09, 2009, 06:45:03 pm »


RCP has a CNN poll with a 61-37 approval, but it says the poll was conducted in late June.  If this is the same poll, it occurred when other polls had Obama around 60% and before the new job loss numbers.  More recent polls have Obama much lower.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,847
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1372 on: July 09, 2009, 06:59:52 pm »


I'm pretty sure most of the 30% who didn't give an answer are Republicans, so not to worry.

That Obama should be slightly ahead of Romney in Texas even with a large number of undecided suggests that

(1) Texans don't know Romney well enough to make a decision,

(2) Romney would be in trouble in Texas in 2012 against Obama, or

(3) Huckabee would do far better than Romney in Texas.

I would have expected Romney to fare better than Huckabee in Texas.

Logged
DariusNJ
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 416


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1373 on: July 09, 2009, 08:00:56 pm »


I'm pretty sure most of the 30% who didn't give an answer are Republicans, so not to worry.

That Obama should be slightly ahead of Romney in Texas even with a large number of undecided suggests that

(1) Texans don't know Romney well enough to make a decision,

(2) Romney would be in trouble in Texas in 2012 against Obama, or

(3) Huckabee would do far better than Romney in Texas.

I would have expected Romney to fare better than Huckabee in Texas.



1 is the correct answer.

Texas would definitely favour Huckabee more than Mitt Romney. Texas has a large base of evangelicals (24.4 % I believe), and it is a very conservative state with a Southern culture. Huckabee got 38% in the Texas primary, much more than Mitt Romney would have gotten even if he was still in the race.
Logged
Badger
badger
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,840
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1374 on: July 09, 2009, 08:15:40 pm »

New polls today:



Obama is slipping some -- probably because he is out of the country.



Expect to see more yellow on that map within 6 to 12 months.
And a lot more green in 18 to 24...
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 50 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59 60 ... 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