Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 12, 2019, 02:25:40 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 ... 87 88 89 90 91 [92] 93 94 95 96 97 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1023133 times)
You kip if you want to...
change08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,947
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2275 on: September 03, 2009, 11:07:27 am »

Today's Rasmussen has Obama at 47/53
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,310
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2276 on: September 03, 2009, 12:05:12 pm »

Gallup:

Approve - 55%
Disapprove - 39%
Logged
Eraserhead
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 42,921
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2277 on: September 03, 2009, 12:23:41 pm »


Cool.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,531
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2278 on: September 03, 2009, 02:41:33 pm »


Arizona's voters have demonstrated a loyalty to the GOP at all levels of the government consistently. The 2008 vote is muddied by the fact that so many areas broke with the GOP that normally vote for it. Ignoring the way people voted in one cycle and then running in and saying there is a massive "favorite son" effect and next time the state will flip after 50 years for absolutely no reason is absurd.

I'm not denying there IS a favorite son factor but having it be absent doesn't mean a 50 year or 20 or 30 or whatever voting streak will change.

John McCain did less well in Arizona than one would expect in a state voting so firmly Republican and thus having a GOP political culture. Arizona is most similar in its demographics to Nevada and Colorado.  The 2008 vote suggests that economic conditions and demographic change have eroded the certainty of Republican wins in subsequent years.  The Favorite Son effect masked the obvious fact that Arizona has been drifting D. Without a Favorite Son (and I doubt that John Kyl will be running for President) , Arizona willl be a legitimate battleground for the 2012 election.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


I don't live in  Virginia or North Carolina, so I can't fully explain their politics except to say that they have gone from being more rural than the national average to being more urban. It's arguable that Virginia has become a Northern state in its politics. North Carolina? Lots of Northerners  have brought their voting patterns with them. One joke about one North Carolina suburb is that Cary stands for Containment Area for Relocated Yankees.

Indiana? I live in southwestern Michigan, so I get to know a little about Indiana politics. In 2008 the state acted as if it had a Favorite Son -- Obama. The Favorite Son effect may be more relevant to news media than to campaign efforts. Much of Indiana media feed from or into Illinois, where Obama was a Senator.  Because of the state's off transportation network (despite its size, Indianapolis is not a great airline hub, and most air traffic in Indiana goes through Chicago), the state is ordinarily difficult to set up a campaign apparatus in from outside -- unless the other state is Illinois. About 90% of all air travel to or from Indiana goes through O'Hare International Airport, with a little going through Detroit and Cincinnati. The economy was messed up due at first to high energy prices (which hit the RV industry hard); those energy prices abated just as the financial  meltdown hit (people could better afford to drive RVs, but they couldn't get financing so easily). Ouch! Obama actually campaigned in Indiana, which Democrats from outside the area don't ordinarily do in a contested election.

Hillary Clinton would definitely have lost Indiana. JFK lost the state by 11 points in one of the closest elections ever, and neither Gore nor Kerry could get close.  It's hard to campaign in Indiana  from Massachusetts (JFK, Kerry), Tennessee (Gore), Georgia (Carter),  Arkansas (Clinton), or even Minnesota (HHH). Adlai Stevenson was from Illinois, but he couldn't win anything in the North. Hillary Clinton would have had a hard time campaigning in Indiana from New York. Oddly, Obama turned the table on McCain, exposing the difficulty of having to campaign in Indiana from a long distance.  
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 #2279 on: September 03, 2009, 02:56:03 pm »

Nevada(Kos)

Favorable 48%
Unfavorable 41%

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2009/9/2/NV/357
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,886
Cuba


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2280 on: September 03, 2009, 03:30:02 pm »


Obviously time to resign.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,947
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2281 on: September 03, 2009, 04:04:41 pm »


I agree. Republicans are gonna gain 150 seats in the house and 20 seats in the senate otherwise and Sarah Palin's gonna be the next prez. 53% of Americans disapprove of Obama... stick a fork in the white house, this administration is done.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,531
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2282 on: September 03, 2009, 06:18:05 pm »
« Edited: September 03, 2009, 07:12:25 pm by pbrower2a »


 Obama up 7% in Nevada? The GOP could still win without Nevada, but it would be difficult.



Harry Reid is in trouble politically:

Harry Reid
                    FAV    UNFAV    NO OPINION
ALL                       36   52   12
MEN                       33   56   11
WOMEN               39   48   13
DEMOCRATS       58   32   10
REPUBLICANS       15   73   12
INDEPENDENTS    28   57   15
18-29               36   51   13
30-44               37   51   12
45-59               36   53   11
60+                       35   53   12

The Age Wave that helped Obama in 2008 isn't helping Senator Reed (D-NV)

At least he's not in the same trouble as his fellow Nevada Senator:


  John Ensign
                            FAV    UNFAV    NO OPINION
ALL                           28   53            19
MEN                           31   49            20
WOMEN                   25   57            18
DEMOCRATS           11   75            14
REPUBLICANS           49   26            25
INDEPENDENTS   26   57            17
18-29                   22   58            20
30-44                   26   55            19
45-59                   31   51            18
60+                           33   48            19

Need I spell it out: T-I-M-E   T-O   R-E-S-I-G-N





Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,947
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2283 on: September 03, 2009, 06:20:03 pm »


That's NEVADA, not Nebraska. If Obama were up 48-41 in Nebraska, it would be time for the Republican to think of re-establishing a political career that does not contain 1600 Pennsylvania. Obama up 7% in Nevada? The GOP could still win without Nevada, but it would be difficult.



Harry Reid is in trouble politically:

    FAV     UNFAV     NO OPINION
ALL   36    52             12

He needs a good card to stay in the game. At least it's an outside straight.



... but John Ensign is in political quicksand:

  John Ensign
                            FAV    UNFAV    NO OPINION
ALL                           28   53            19
MEN                           31   49            20
WOMEN                   25   57            18
DEMOCRATS           11   75            14
REPUBLICANS           49   26            25
INDEPENDENTS   26   57            17
18-29                   22   58            20
30-44                   26   55            19
45-59                   31   51            18
60+                           33   48            19

Need I spell it out: T-I-M-E   T-O   R-E-S-I-G-N





Time to run for re-election giving the Dems a free pickup. Wink
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 #2284 on: September 03, 2009, 06:22:53 pm »

You seem to be forgetting that Obama won NV by 13 points. Also, this is favorables, not approval which would be lower. And plus, it's a Kos poll.
Logged
SenatorShadowLands
Rookie
*
Posts: 43
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2285 on: September 03, 2009, 06:57:10 pm »


Arizona's voters have demonstrated a loyalty to the GOP at all levels of the government consistently. The 2008 vote is muddied by the fact that so many areas broke with the GOP that normally vote for it. Ignoring the way people voted in one cycle and then running in and saying there is a massive "favorite son" effect and next time the state will flip after 50 years for absolutely no reason is absurd.

I'm not denying there IS a favorite son factor but having it be absent doesn't mean a 50 year or 20 or 30 or whatever voting streak will change.

John McCain did less well in Arizona than one would expect in a state voting so firmly Republican and thus having a GOP political culture. Arizona is most similar in its demographics to Nevada and Colorado.  The 2008 vote suggests that economic conditions and demographic change have eroded the certainty of Republican wins in subsequent years.  The Favorite Son effect masked the obvious fact that Arizona has been drifting D. Without a Favorite Son (and I doubt that John Kyl will be running for President) , Arizona willl be a legitimate battleground for the 2012 election.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


I don't live in  Virginia or North Carolina, so I can't fully explain their politics except to say that they have gone from being more rural than the national average to being more urban. It's arguable that Virginia has become a Northern state in its politics. North Carolina? Lots of Northerners  have brought their voting patterns with them. One joke about one North Carolina suburb is that Cary stands for Containment Area for Relocated Yankees.

Indiana? I live in southwestern Michigan, so I get to know a little about Indiana politics. In 2008 the state acted as if it had a Favorite Son -- Obama. The Favorite Son effect may be more relevant to news media than to campaign efforts. Much of Indiana media feed from or into Illinois, where Obama was a Senator.  Because of the state's off transportation network (despite its size, Indianapolis is not a great airline hub, and most air traffic in Indiana goes through Chicago), the state is ordinarily difficult to set up a campaign apparatus in from outside -- unless the other state is Illinois. About 90% of all air travel to or from Indiana goes through O'Hare International Airport, with a little going through Detroit and Cincinnati. The economy was messed up due at first to high energy prices (which hit the RV industry hard); those energy prices abated just as the financial  meltdown hit (people could better afford to drive RVs, but they couldn't get financing so easily). Ouch! Obama actually campaigned in Indiana, which Democrats from outside the area don't ordinarily do in a contested election.

Hillary Clinton would definitely have lost Indiana. JFK lost the state by 11 points in one of the closest elections ever, and neither Gore nor Kerry could get close.  It's hard to campaign in Indiana  from Massachusetts (JFK, Kerry), Tennessee (Gore), Georgia (Carter),  Arkansas (Clinton), or even Minnesota (HHH). Adlai Stevenson was from Illinois, but he couldn't win anything in the North. Hillary Clinton would have had a hard time campaigning in Indiana from New York. Oddly, Obama turned the table on McCain, exposing the difficulty of having to campaign in Indiana from a long distance.  


Bush won Arizona by 6 in 2000 and 11 in 2004. McCain won it by 8 in a crappy GOP year. 2000 was an average GOP year and Bush took it by 6, so  the favorite son effect helped the GOP in a bad year but its ludicrous to suggest Arizona will magically flip in 2012 when it didn't stay Dem in 2000.

What is with the massive Indiana speech? You threw in some random statement about Ford winning Michigan but losing states that were much like it to Carter and you tried to link that to Arizona.

Indiana isn't ANYTHING like Michigan or Illinois (even in Indianapolis) I dont know if you;ve ever been there but just because some of the airwaves broadcast over from Chicago doesn't by any stretch of the imagination make it like IL and MI. Regardless, you threw some random statement at me about Carter winning non-Carter friendly states well Obama won states that had non-Obama friendly backgrounds, big whoop. What does it have to do with Arizona???
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,346
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2286 on: September 03, 2009, 07:12:20 pm »

You seem to be forgetting that Obama won NV by 13 points. Also, this is favorables, not approval which would be lower. And plus, it's a Kos poll.

^^^
Correct.  "Favorability" is not "job approval".  One shouldn't treat them interchangeably.  And yes, Obama won NV by ~5 points more than he won by nationally, so the GOP could certainly win without it.  Heck, post-2010 reapportionment, the GOP can win by getting all the states that Bush won twice minus Nevada.  That currently adds up to 269 EV, but would be ~277 EV in 2012.
Logged
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,031
Czech Republic


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2287 on: September 03, 2009, 07:18:21 pm »

You seem to be forgetting that Obama won NV by 13 points. Also, this is favorables, not approval which would be lower. And plus, it's a Kos poll.

^^^
Correct.  "Favorability" is not "job approval".  One shouldn't treat them interchangeably.  And yes, Obama won NV by ~5 points more than he won by nationally, so the GOP could certainly win without it.  Heck, post-2010 reapportionment, the GOP can win by getting all the states that Bush won twice minus Nevada.  That currently adds up to 269 274 EV, but would be ~277 EV in 2012.

Logged
YankeeFan007
Dem4Life
Full Member
***
Posts: 138


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2288 on: September 03, 2009, 07:23:06 pm »

You seem to be forgetting that Obama won NV by 13 points. Also, this is favorables, not approval which would be lower. And plus, it's a Kos poll.
His approval rating is 11.7 percent.  Its only 11.7 percent because Rasmussen is -7.   There is at least a 14 percent difference between Rasmussen and all other polls.  Also, Rasmussen is the only poll that is not releasing demographics. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,310
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2289 on: September 03, 2009, 07:37:52 pm »

The ironic thing is that if McCain or Biden was President, they wouldn't be as popular as Obama, but they wouldn't be as unpopular either. Obama's supporters are like "GOOOO OBAMA!!!!!!!!! CHANGE THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!! CHANGE AMERICA!!!!!!! KICK THOSE REPUBLICAN ASSES", and the anti-Obama people are like "OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST!!!!!!!!!!! HE'S A TRAITOR!!!!!!!!! LIBERAL PUSSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

In fact, there's a lot of people on Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace etc who have created accounts solely based on thier love or hatred of Obama.

Why is this? Well, it's because Obama as a glamour President, a different President, by most people. Politicians like McCain and Biden are seen as normal, and boring, by most people.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,947
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2290 on: September 03, 2009, 07:41:03 pm »

The ironic thing is that if McCain or Biden was President, they wouldn't be as popular as Obama, but they wouldn't be as unpopular either. Obama's supporters are like "GOOOO OBAMA!!!!!!!!! CHANGE THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!! CHANGE AMERICA!!!!!!! KICK THOSE REPUBLICAN ASSES", and the anti-Obama people are like "OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST!!!!!!!!!!! HE'S A TRAITOR!!!!!!!!! LIBERAL PUSSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

In fact, there's a lot of people on Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace etc who have created accounts solely based on thier love or hatred of Obama.

Why is this? Well, it's because Obama as a glamour President, a different President, by most people. Politicians like McCain and Biden are seen as normal, and boring, by most people.

It's hard not to admit that Obama is polarizing and inspirational at the same time. If Palin was liked by independants, the same would be true of her if she ever became President some day.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,531
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2291 on: September 03, 2009, 08:20:38 pm »


Bush won Arizona by 6 in 2000 and 11 in 2004. McCain won it by 8 in a crappy GOP year. 2000 was an average GOP year and Bush took it by 6, so  the favorite son effect helped the GOP in a bad year but its ludicrous to suggest Arizona will magically flip in 2012 when it didn't stay Dem in 2000.

What is with the massive Indiana speech? You threw in some random statement about Ford winning Michigan but losing states that were much like it to Carter and you tried to link that to Arizona.

Indiana isn't ANYTHING like Michigan or Illinois (even in Indianapolis) I dont know if you;ve ever been there but just because some of the airwaves broadcast over from Chicago doesn't by any stretch of the imagination make it like IL and MI. Regardless, you threw some random statement at me about Carter winning non-Carter friendly states well Obama won states that had non-Obama friendly backgrounds, big whoop. What does it have to do with Arizona???
[/quote]

 

It's LOGISTICS and media penetration. Should Obama need Indiana in 2008, then he has an advantage in Indiana from the relative ease of reaching Indiana that nobody else can have. Obama's campaign headquarters are in Chicago, and his campaign can more easily get equipment into Indiana cities than will anyone else. You tell me: are there any direct flights between Little Rock and Indianapolis?

Indiana doesn't have to be as liberal as Illinois, Michigan, or Ohio to give Obama an advantage. Indeed, any Democrat would have to win three of the four surrounding states to have a chance at winning Indiana. Media penetration? Obama knows how to use media, and his staff knows Indiana media and Indiana media made his campaign in Indiana front-page news or the leading story.

The common wisdom before 2008 was that Indiana would never go to any Democratic nominee for President except in a 40-state blowout or with a Democratic nominee from Indiana. Such must now be modified: Indiana is nearly impossible for a Democratic nominee to win except  in a 45-state landslide or if the Democratic nominee is from a neighboring state (IL, MI, OH, KY), if not from Indiana itself, in a strong campaign. Wisconsin? Probably not.

Unless the GOP completely melts down, I'd give it about a 95% chance of winning Indiana in 2016.

If Indiana and Arizona have any connection in 2012 they could easily two states that change sides in 2012.

Logged
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,914


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2292 on: September 04, 2009, 12:53:30 am »


Arizona's voters have demonstrated a loyalty to the GOP at all levels of the government consistently. The 2008 vote is muddied by the fact that so many areas broke with the GOP that normally vote for it. Ignoring the way people voted in one cycle and then running in and saying there is a massive "favorite son" effect and next time the state will flip after 50 years for absolutely no reason is absurd.

I'm not denying there IS a favorite son factor but having it be absent doesn't mean a 50 year or 20 or 30 or whatever voting streak will change.

John McCain did less well in Arizona than one would expect in a state voting so firmly Republican and thus having a GOP political culture. Arizona is most similar in its demographics to Nevada and Colorado.  The 2008 vote suggests that economic conditions and demographic change have eroded the certainty of Republican wins in subsequent years.  The Favorite Son effect masked the obvious fact that Arizona has been drifting D. Without a Favorite Son (and I doubt that John Kyl will be running for President) , Arizona willl be a legitimate battleground for the 2012 election.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


I don't live in  Virginia or North Carolina, so I can't fully explain their politics except to say that they have gone from being more rural than the national average to being more urban. It's arguable that Virginia has become a Northern state in its politics. North Carolina? Lots of Northerners  have brought their voting patterns with them. One joke about one North Carolina suburb is that Cary stands for Containment Area for Relocated Yankees.

Indiana? I live in southwestern Michigan, so I get to know a little about Indiana politics. In 2008 the state acted as if it had a Favorite Son -- Obama. The Favorite Son effect may be more relevant to news media than to campaign efforts. Much of Indiana media feed from or into Illinois, where Obama was a Senator.  Because of the state's off transportation network (despite its size, Indianapolis is not a great airline hub, and most air traffic in Indiana goes through Chicago), the state is ordinarily difficult to set up a campaign apparatus in from outside -- unless the other state is Illinois. About 90% of all air travel to or from Indiana goes through O'Hare International Airport, with a little going through Detroit and Cincinnati. The economy was messed up due at first to high energy prices (which hit the RV industry hard); those energy prices abated just as the financial  meltdown hit (people could better afford to drive RVs, but they couldn't get financing so easily). Ouch! Obama actually campaigned in Indiana, which Democrats from outside the area don't ordinarily do in a contested election.

Hillary Clinton would definitely have lost Indiana. JFK lost the state by 11 points in one of the closest elections ever, and neither Gore nor Kerry could get close.  It's hard to campaign in Indiana  from Massachusetts (JFK, Kerry), Tennessee (Gore), Georgia (Carter),  Arkansas (Clinton), or even Minnesota (HHH). Adlai Stevenson was from Illinois, but he couldn't win anything in the North. Hillary Clinton would have had a hard time campaigning in Indiana from New York. Oddly, Obama turned the table on McCain, exposing the difficulty of having to campaign in Indiana from a long distance.  


Bush won Arizona by 6 in 2000 and 11 in 2004. McCain won it by 8 in a crappy GOP year. 2000 was an average GOP year and Bush took it by 6, so  the favorite son effect helped the GOP in a bad year but its ludicrous to suggest Arizona will magically flip in 2012 when it didn't stay Dem in 2000.

What is with the massive Indiana speech? You threw in some random statement about Ford winning Michigan but losing states that were much like it to Carter and you tried to link that to Arizona.

Indiana isn't ANYTHING like Michigan or Illinois (even in Indianapolis) I dont know if you;ve ever been there but just because some of the airwaves broadcast over from Chicago doesn't by any stretch of the imagination make it like IL and MI. Regardless, you threw some random statement at me about Carter winning non-Carter friendly states well Obama won states that had non-Obama friendly backgrounds, big whoop. What does it have to do with Arizona???

Arizona I think is thrown into the mix if Obama wins by a somewhat similar margin nationally in 2012 than he did in 2008.   If you look at how Arizona compared to the national average in 2000 and 2004, it was in line with Obama's 08 margin.  6.79% more GOP in 2000, 8.01% more GOP in 04, Obama won nationally by 7.28% in 08. 

Granted that doesn't exactly mean Arizona will be in that range in 2012, but its not out of the question especially with the problems the GOP has with the Hispanic vote (which wasn't really seen last year in Arizona because of McCain, but will pretty much be seen with anyone else in 2012)

Its even possible that we can see Arizona trend a few points in the Dems direction compared to the national average with no more home state effect as the neighboring states all did (New Mexico, nevada & Colorado) and Obama could pull off Arizona with a national victory of 5-6 points, but I think that is unlikely.  My guess is he probably would need a slightly larger national victory than he had in 2008 to pull it off in 2012 (7.5-8%) and anything around 4 or 5% could make Arizona quite close.  With that being said if Obama wins Arizona or even if he makes it within a couple points there the election will already be over.
Logged
SenatorShadowLands
Rookie
*
Posts: 43
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2293 on: September 04, 2009, 07:05:00 am »


Bush won Arizona by 6 in 2000 and 11 in 2004. McCain won it by 8 in a crappy GOP year. 2000 was an average GOP year and Bush took it by 6, so  the favorite son effect helped the GOP in a bad year but its ludicrous to suggest Arizona will magically flip in 2012 when it didn't stay Dem in 2000.

What is with the massive Indiana speech? You threw in some random statement about Ford winning Michigan but losing states that were much like it to Carter and you tried to link that to Arizona.

Indiana isn't ANYTHING like Michigan or Illinois (even in Indianapolis) I dont know if you;ve ever been there but just because some of the airwaves broadcast over from Chicago doesn't by any stretch of the imagination make it like IL and MI. Regardless, you threw some random statement at me about Carter winning non-Carter friendly states well Obama won states that had non-Obama friendly backgrounds, big whoop. What does it have to do with Arizona???

 

It's LOGISTICS and media penetration. Should Obama need Indiana in 2008, then he has an advantage in Indiana from the relative ease of reaching Indiana that nobody else can have. Obama's campaign headquarters are in Chicago, and his campaign can more easily get equipment into Indiana cities than will anyone else. You tell me: are there any direct flights between Little Rock and Indianapolis?

Indiana doesn't have to be as liberal as Illinois, Michigan, or Ohio to give Obama an advantage. Indeed, any Democrat would have to win three of the four surrounding states to have a chance at winning Indiana. Media penetration? Obama knows how to use media, and his staff knows Indiana media and Indiana media made his campaign in Indiana front-page news or the leading story.

The common wisdom before 2008 was that Indiana would never go to any Democratic nominee for President except in a 40-state blowout or with a Democratic nominee from Indiana. Such must now be modified: Indiana is nearly impossible for a Democratic nominee to win except  in a 45-state landslide or if the Democratic nominee is from a neighboring state (IL, MI, OH, KY), if not from Indiana itself, in a strong campaign. Wisconsin? Probably not.

Unless the GOP completely melts down, I'd give it about a 95% chance of winning Indiana in 2016.

If Indiana and Arizona have any connection in 2012 they could easily two states that change sides in 2012.


[/quote]

If you throw enough time and effort into a state, especially when its starting to become competitive then yeah you're going to do well there. I've got no problem with saying that. I'm still trying to establish the connection between all of that and Arizona. If Obama spends a ton of time and money there does he have a shot? Yes, it's not Alabama but that's true  eveywhere else as well. If you make many appearnaces and spend a lot of money trying to win a state you have a better chance of doing so. That's common sense not some shocking political trend that will make Arizona vote Dem in 2012.
Logged
SenatorShadowLands
Rookie
*
Posts: 43
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2294 on: September 04, 2009, 07:10:09 am »

Don't think anyone caught these yet:

FDU Public Mind New Jersey:
Approve: 56
Disapprove: 36

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/healthhelps/release.pdf

Chicago Tribune/ WGN Illinois Political Survey
Approve: 59
Disapprove: 33

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-obama-poll04sep04,0,2367412.story
Logged
DariusNJ
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 416


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2295 on: September 04, 2009, 10:38:16 am »
« Edited: September 04, 2009, 10:42:11 am by DariusNJ »

"President Barack Obama will address a joint session of Congress on health care reform in prime time on Wednesday, Sept. 9, a senior official tells POLITICO.

Obama will receive House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at the White House the day before for a previously scheduled sit-down.

The last time a president addressed a joint session of Congress that wasn’t a State of the Union, or the traditional first address by a new president, was Sept. 20, 2001, when President George W. Bush spoke on the war on terrorism following the 9/11 attacks."




This should mean a bump in Obama approval ratings, unless he messes up badly. Obama usually knocks these kind of speeches out of the park, so I'm hopeful.

For reference, when Bill Clinton gave his big health care speech in front of Congress in '93, his approval rating went up 10 points. Keep in mind that the bump Obama likely will receive won't last very long, but it would stop the fall in approval he's experiencing.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,310
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2296 on: September 04, 2009, 12:24:12 pm »

Gallup:

Approve - 55%
Disapprove - 38%
Logged
marvelrobbins
Full Member
***
Posts: 116
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2297 on: September 04, 2009, 12:24:48 pm »

Gallup

Approve 55%(No change)

Disapproval 38%(-1)
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,671
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2298 on: September 04, 2009, 12:40:06 pm »

Pennsylvania (Franklin & Marshall College)Sad

47% Excellent/Good
53% Fair/Poor

Most people — 55 percent — have a favorable view of Obama, about the same as in February, shortly after his inauguration.

The poll of 643 adults, conducted from Aug. 25-31, has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.9 percentage points.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_641271.html

"Fair", of course, ain't necessarily negative. Fair means 'could be doing better'
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,671
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2299 on: September 04, 2009, 12:42:51 pm »

"President Barack Obama will address a joint session of Congress on health care reform in prime time on Wednesday, Sept. 9, a senior official tells POLITICO.

Obama will receive House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at the White House the day before for a previously scheduled sit-down.

The last time a president addressed a joint session of Congress that wasn’t a State of the Union, or the traditional first address by a new president, was Sept. 20, 2001, when President George W. Bush spoke on the war on terrorism following the 9/11 attacks."




This should mean a bump in Obama approval ratings, unless he messes up badly. Obama usually knocks these kind of speeches out of the park, so I'm hopeful.

For reference, when Bill Clinton gave his big health care speech in front of Congress in '93, his approval rating went up 10 points. Keep in mind that the bump Obama likely will receive won't last very long, but it would stop the fall in approval he's experiencing.


For a start, the president needs to assert control of his agenda, instead of Congress doing much of the proposing and disposing. The Progressive Caucus chairs too many House committees relative to it's strength in the caucus. Many progressives think they can draft legislation for America as though the entire nation was as blue as their districts - well, it isn't

The Democratic majority in the House and Senate rests on moderate Democrats and the overwhelming support of moderate voters, not left-liberals from uber safe states and districts . And much of the Democratic success, of late, has meant having to run the right kind of Democrat who can, successfully, challenge and defeat right-wing Republican dogmatoids (certainly outside of the Northeast). Indeed, I lament the decline of more pragmatically-minded moderate Republicans

The biggest threat to much-needed healthcare reform lies in "absolutism" be it on the part of the minority Democratic left and the mainstream Republican right. In all fairness, to the progressives, of course, they have compromised on single-payer, which is more than I can say for the reactionary party, who all the while healthcare costs spiralled were more than content to do nothing; seemingly, oblivious, to any wider negative impact on economic growth, wages and job creation

The middle class are the backbone of the American economy and it is they who drive it through consumer spending. Given that median incomes have fallen is it any wonder the economy hit the crappers to the extent that it did?

And here's something else the Democrats need to get a handle on. They are going to have stop acquiesing to the environmental lobby so much because should the price of gas go through the roof, hurting the middle class, and the Republican solution is "drill, baby drill" it may well be advantage GOP

It was the Democratic Party and the modern liberal era which founded the mass middle class - in the wake of the 'Great Depression' and World War II - and they are under moral obligation, IMO, to champion it

I shouldn't need to remind any one that, during the 1970s, it was the perception that WELFARE rewarded idleness over work that, in part, sent much of the white working class - the founding pillar of the 'New Deal' - increasingly into the arms of the Republicans. Not to mention the effect of the Democratic Party spinelessly handing defense and national security, in wake of the fratricide, which tore the party apart in 1968 and beyond, over the war in Vietnam, to the GOP. I've about as much love for the 'New Left' as I have the 'New Right', which isn't very much

The Democrats, now, at least, have a chance to get it right because, unfortunately, the Republican Party is not as discredited as it was back in 1932
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 87 88 89 90 91 [92] 93 94 95 96 97 ... 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