Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 05, 2019, 05:06:22 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 ... 145 146 147 148 149 [150] 151 152 153 154 155 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1022287 times)
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,509
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3725 on: January 30, 2010, 02:00:25 pm »

Michigan (EPIC-MRA)Sad

Overall, how would you rate the job being done by Barack Obama as President - would you give him a positive rating of excellent or pretty good, or a negative rating of just fair or poor?

41% Positive
58% Negative

Now, I would like to read a list of several political figures. For each one, please tell me if you recognize the name, and if you do, whether you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of that person.

Total Favorable: 50%
Total Unfavorable: 44%

http://www.wxyz.com/news/story/Exclusive-Poll-Race-for-Michigan-Governor/6nIgarXkF0i6bw7bdzLAYw.cspx

Michigan is ungovernable.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3726 on: January 30, 2010, 02:35:09 pm »

Gallup is 47/47 today. No bump at all.

Rasmussen showed an increase on its daily, but the approval numbers are still in that 44%-49% range, though at the lower end.  If he hits 50 tomorrow or Monday, it probably is the "slight bounce."  Also if he can hold 49% for three days or more, it would be an improvement and could mark a slight bounce.

I really think we have to wait at least three days before hailing Obama's comeback or start the resignation watch.  Wink
Logged
Poundingtherock
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 917
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3727 on: January 30, 2010, 02:37:45 pm »

Actually, Gallup is showing somewhat of a negative bounce from his SOTU address.

That's disastrous for Obama to get no bounce or a negative bounce from a primetime speech.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3728 on: January 30, 2010, 02:54:40 pm »

Actually, Gallup is showing somewhat of a negative bounce from his SOTU address.

That's disastrous for Obama to get no bounce or a negative bounce from a primetime speech.

No, not really.  Some other poster noted that there was a negative effect or very little effect.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,946
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3729 on: January 31, 2010, 02:51:37 am »

Actually, Gallup is showing somewhat of a negative bounce from his SOTU address.

That's disastrous for Obama to get no bounce or a negative bounce from a primetime speech.

No, not really.  Some other poster noted that there was a negative effect or very little effect.

Logged
Poundingtherock
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 917
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3730 on: January 31, 2010, 03:03:27 am »

So you are now conceding that Obama is no better than other Presidents at changing public opinion through his speeches?

If so, that's quite a concession since that was allegedly one of his greatest stregths as a candidate.  If he's not able to move the needle any better than any other President, it's tough to see what he can use to turn it around considering that he lacks the abilities of other Presidents on things other than speeches.
Logged
Umengus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,199
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3731 on: January 31, 2010, 05:44:03 am »

Actually, Gallup is showing somewhat of a negative bounce from his SOTU address.

That's disastrous for Obama to get no bounce or a negative bounce from a primetime speech.

Gallup is not a reliable source.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,946
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3732 on: January 31, 2010, 08:58:00 am »

Some bounce for Obama on Rasmussen:

50% Approve (+4)
50% Disapprove (-4)

"Thatís up four points since the morning of the speech and is the first time his approval has reached 50% among likely voters since November 16."

33% Strongly Approve (+8)
40% Strongly Disapprove (-2)

"This is the first update based entirely upon interviews conducted since the State-of-the-Union Address and it reflects a bounce for the President. The number who Strongly Approve is the highest in more than four months (since September) and the overall Approval Index rating is the best in more than three months (since October). The bounce comes almost entirely from those in the presidentís party. Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats now Strongly Approve, up from 50% before the speech. However, the speech appears to have had the opposite impact on unaffiliated voters. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 50% now Strongly Disapprove. Thatís up from 42% before the speech. The next few days should give an indication as to whether these changes will fade or if they signify the beginning of a new phase in the political environment."
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3733 on: January 31, 2010, 10:14:20 am »

This marks the first time since I think the first week in 12/09 that Obama's Approval, Disapproval, and Strongly Approve numbers were out of a 2.5 point range on Rasmussen.

The strongly disapproval numbers, however, are still in that range.  The 40% is not out of that range.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,654


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3734 on: January 31, 2010, 10:25:50 am »

Folks, there's a couple of possible reasons why Rasmussen and Gallup are diverging, separate from:

a) the usual sampling error inherent in polls (and that error would correct itself soon enough, anyways) and perhaps, just as importantly,
b) the weekday vs. weekend partisan swings that historically Gallup has (Rasmussen weights a lot of this out). 

These last two reasons mean that Obama may have had a bounce - or maybe not.  Pop Quiz - can anyone tell me why both things could occur?

Anyway, the two reasons separate from the above usual reasons are not particularly good for Obama, if they are actually occurring.  One of them (#2) is particularly bad, actually.  Listed below:

1) Democrats were energized positively by the SOTU; Republicans/conservative (or Obama disapproving) Indys were energized even stronger, so much so that appear in greater numbers in the polls after the speech.  Gallup doesn't weight by party, so these swings would appear in the poll, whereas they would get weighted out by Rasmussen, resulting in the Democratic positive enthusiasm remaining in the poll, where the other gets weighted out.

2) Most Democrats were energized positively by the SOTU, but some Democrats were energized negatively by the speech, such that they either didn't respond to the poll or respond to the poll, identify as Indys and say they're neutral or disapprove.  Once again, this swing in "party ID" that would result would get weighted out by Rasmussen, but would appear in Gallup.

We should know more in about a week or so as to whether the normal polling factors are at play or whether the two other reasons dominate.

So, Republicans partisans can believe in the good reasons (for them) and Democrats can believe good reasons (for them) and we can all be happy.

Nevertheless, I suspect all of this washes away in a few weeks, regardless of which reason is the cause.

Btw, lastly, these two "other" reasons should always be in the back of your mind should Gallup and Rasmussen diverge as such and should always be remembered whenever you face polls weighted by party vs. polls not weighted by party because they're a bit counterintuitive.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,509
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3735 on: January 31, 2010, 02:59:57 pm »

So you are now conceding that Obama is no better than other Presidents at changing public opinion through his speeches?

Of course he needs to translate his rhetoric into desirable results. The translation is known as "public administration", a dry topic. It's not enough to excoriate crime if one wants to reduce it; one must get the means with which to fight crime and use them effectively. Neither is it enough to say "a chicken in every pot" (Herbert Hoover) as a statement of economic objectives.

In 2012 Obama runs on his successful record and wins, or runs from a failed record and loses. If he is a failure in 2012, then the Right will surely offer its mirror image of Obama's speeches with calls to sacrifice (cream for the tycoon's cat comes before milk for the worker's daughter). If he is a success, then Obama reshapes the political discourse for an indefinite time.

The political rhetoric is the only means of reaching the general public. Most people aren't involved in public administration, in the military, or diplomacy. The Federal Reserve may have more role in deciding how the economy works -- at least as the President allows it to work -- than any single person.

President Obama is masterful at telling people what they want to hear. How good is he in getting results? Time will tell.  As I see it, enough Senate Democrats are in political danger that he will need to do some campaigning. I can't predict what he can do for someone like Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas -- but who knows? It's a long time until November 2011. Can anyone give a good prediction of unemployment and the stock market numbers will be?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since November 2008, President Obama has had few opportunities to do what he does best. If giving stirring, long-winded speeches were enough for governing a country adeptly, then Fidel Castro would be the world's greatest leader. Castro's Cuba leaves overpowering evidence that stirring, long-winded speeches are far from enough.

President Obama must still push legislation as if he has only two years in which to make a difference. He will have to convince his majority in Congress -- and us -- of its necessity. Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission may have ensured that the 111st Congress is the last liberal Congress for a very long time.

Or is it? President Obama did go to the Republican Caucus in Baltimore for a question-and-answer session with cameras rolling, and he deftly eviscerated some of the talking points of Congressional Republicans. The GOP needs some fresh talking points if it is to make significant gains in November. .   
Logged
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,276
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3736 on: February 01, 2010, 07:15:40 am »

President Obama must still push legislation as if he has only two years in which to make a difference. He will have to convince his majority in Congress -- and us -- of its necessity. Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission may have ensured that the 111st Congress is the last liberal Congress for a very long time.

Or is it? President Obama did go to the Republican Caucus in Baltimore for a question-and-answer session with cameras rolling, and he deftly eviscerated some of the talking points of Congressional Republicans. The GOP needs some fresh talking points if it is to make significant gains in November. .   

You seem to be either contradicting yourself....or trying to make sure an accurate prediction is in there somewhere.

If Democrats lose the midterms badly, you'll blame it on the Supreme Court ruling. If Democrats win or lose less badly than expected, you'll demonstrate that you wisely predicted that Republicans would need new talking points to win.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3737 on: February 01, 2010, 10:47:31 am »

Rasmussen showed a about a 10 point gain in Strongly Approve.  His Strongly Disapprove numbers are still within the 2.5 point range, though down by 3 from before the SOTU.

The SOTU probably rallied the base, but it doesn't look like it moved the others.
Logged
DariusNJ
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 416


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3738 on: February 01, 2010, 11:30:55 am »


The SOTU probably rallied the base, but it doesn't look like it moved the others.

Agreed.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,509
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3739 on: February 01, 2010, 12:37:07 pm »

President Obama must still push legislation as if he has only two years in which to make a difference. He will have to convince his majority in Congress -- and us -- of its necessity. Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission may have ensured that the 111st Congress is the last liberal Congress for a very long time.

Or is it? President Obama did go to the Republican Caucus in Baltimore for a question-and-answer session with cameras rolling, and he deftly eviscerated some of the talking points of Congressional Republicans. The GOP needs some fresh talking points if it is to make significant gains in November. .   

You seem to be either contradicting yourself....or trying to make sure an accurate prediction is in there somewhere.

If Democrats lose the midterms badly, you'll blame it on the Supreme Court ruling. If Democrats win or lose less badly than expected, you'll demonstrate that you wisely predicted that Republicans would need new talking points to win.


Prediction is more an art than a science. Elections depend upon multiple factors, some contradicting the others, and some more powerful than others.  Will the political talents of Barack Obama be strong enough to counteract the effect of a mass of hostile advertising? Ask again in November as the 112th Congress comes into view.

The usual cause for the fall of a majority in Congress is some combination of arrogance, complacency, and corruption by the majority about to take a fall. If one looks at the 1994 and 2006 elections, one sees much of those three traits in the majority. How long does it take for a Congressional majority to become arrogant, complacent, and corrupt? Such ordinarily takes more than the four years in which the Democrats will have held a majority.

It takes time for elected officials to start getting away with bad deeds, and some more time for the effects to become obvious and for the bad ones to get caught. It also takes tome for some of the less desirable political figures -- mediocre figures who aren't up to the tasks, people in fringe districts elected for the wrong reasons, people who can't vote with the sentiments of their districts -- who get exposed for their weaknesses and become unelectable. Wave elections bring some substandard politicians, and the next wave drives them out.

2010 is probably too early for a Republican wave election. In 2012 such is more likely, and by 2014... very likely. The Republican wave election of 1994 took twelve years to undo.  Does anyone expect the wave election of 2006 to be done in a mere four?  

Nobody gets elected on the promise of becoming a corrupt politician or for failing the usual standards.  The fall ordinarily requires that the Other Side have coherent alternatives -- and those take time to develop.  

People vote, and nobody threatens them with job loss, bodily harm, fines, professional disqualification, or imprisonment should they vote "wrong". Maybe some of us have exaggerated the effects of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ; the Corporate Right must have some coherent message to voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats. Political propaganda devoid of credibility, as shown in the extreme by the broadcasts of "Lord Haw-Haw" from the Third Reich to Britain during World War II, is worse than useless in achieving its objectives.        



Reality, especially political reality itself is full of contradictions.  

Personalities and their talents matter greatly. If you didn't think so, then you probably didn't vote in the 2008 election if eligible. The leadership of political parties also matters greatly.    
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,509
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3740 on: February 01, 2010, 01:43:22 pm »

Rasmussen showed a about a 10 point gain in Strongly Approve.  His Strongly Disapprove numbers are still within the 2.5 point range, though down by 3 from before the SOTU.

The SOTU probably rallied the base, but it doesn't look like it moved the others.


Here is the source:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's 49/50 with "likely voters", as Rasmussen determines them 33 months before the election. We need remember that some of those "likely voters" will die or go senile, and that some of the voters of 2012 are now only 15 years and 3 months old.

Those who actually watched the SOTU address may be a self-selecting sample, but note well that those who "strongly approve" rose by 10%, and those who "strongly disapprove" went down by 3%. Because there can be no tangible improvements in the lives of so many people in the space of five days, I can only believe that something like this happened:

Strongly Approve                                  27%      35% 
Slightly Approve                                    20%      14%
Slightly disapprove                               10%      11%
Strongly disapprove                             42%      39%

The difference between 47-52 and  49-50 is the difference between a nailbiter election and one similar to 2008 if there is no difference in the distribution of votes (and the latter is much in question). The bump looks like enough to suggest that most states would move up one shade in a map of approvals.  That may mostly look like "strongly approve" cannibalizing "slightly approve", 

I do not use daily tracking polls to force changes on my map of statewide polls.  The trend from the third full week of January to February 1 suggests only one thing: that when Barack Obama is in campaign mode, he convinces people who need to be convinced if he is to be re-elected. 

Sure, I recognize that those who still despise him (surely in the "strongly disapprove" category) were more likely to not watch his SOTU address or his even more impressive question-and-answer session with the GOP caucus (the latter not having had time to affect the daily tracking poll)... but even at that, when he gets his campaign message out to the public, he wins. This time it is the same message to Oklahoma (where he got crushed), Missouri (bare loss), Indiana (bare win), Virginia (decisive win in 2008 but iffy now), and Maryland  (where he won by a large margin).

I dare not predict how my map will look when we start seeing many statewide polls with the letter "B" attached for any single state -- but right now I expect mine to be greener by the middle of February. We have just gotten a fresh view of Barack Obama, campaigner, and we now see a pattern for a win. In 2008 he could ignore a state like Arkansas or Kentucky; in 2010 he may need Senate votes in 2011 now held by Blanche Lincoln (D) and Jim Bunning (R) to achieve what remains of his legislative agenda in 2011 and 2012.                           
Logged
CJK
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 671
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3741 on: February 01, 2010, 02:28:43 pm »

Obama approval January 2010 (Gallup):

49% approve

44% disapprove

Trends for comparison:

Carter: 54/28 (January 1978)

Reagan: 48/41 (January 1982)

Bush I: 80/11 (January 1990)

Clinton: 55/37 (January 1994)

Bush II: 84/13 (January 2002)
Logged
Poundingtherock
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 917
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3742 on: February 01, 2010, 03:59:01 pm »

Obama favorable/unfavorable in Florida: 51/45

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/files/2-10-fl-sw---crists-quandary.pdf

The sample is 40/37 Democrat/Republican...so it's a general election sample.  It appears that Democrats are now enthused to vote this November but are still losing.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,509
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3743 on: February 01, 2010, 05:46:38 pm »

Obama favorable/unfavorable in Florida: 51/45

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/files/2-10-fl-sw---crists-quandary.pdf

The sample is 40/37 Democrat/Republican...so it's a general election sample.  It appears that Democrats are now enthused to vote this November but are still losing.

I can't use it, as it is simply a "favorable" question even if it might be so interpreted. Crist has about 6% more "favorable" than "approval".
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3744 on: February 02, 2010, 10:24:29 am »

50/49 on Rasmussen.  That marks the only time since November 16, 2009 that his approval numbers were higher than his disapproval numbers.

There really look likes a bounce in in Strongly Approve, but not a large slump in Strongly Disapprove.  Arguably no slump.
Logged
ConservativeIllini
Full Member
***
Posts: 104


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3745 on: February 02, 2010, 11:05:30 am »

Per PPP's Blance Lincoln Senate poll, Obama is at 38/58 in Arkansas.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,946
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3746 on: February 02, 2010, 01:31:47 pm »

Arkansas (Rasmussen)Sad

33% Approve
66% Disapprove

(Gov. Mike Beebe)

73% Approve
24% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Arkansas was conducted by Rasmussen Reports February 1, 2010. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arkansas/toplines/toplines_arkansas_senate_february_1_2010

.....

Gallup`s continued SOTU bump:

51% Approve (+1)
42% Disapprove (-2)
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,627
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3747 on: February 02, 2010, 02:24:57 pm »

Small national bump in Rasmussen & Gallup. Probably because of the SOTU.
Logged
ragevein
KansasDem
Rookie
*
Posts: 31


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3748 on: February 02, 2010, 10:39:08 pm »

Small national bump in Rasmussen & Gallup. Probably because of the SOTU.


Not because of the news of 5.7% economic growth?
Logged
DariusNJ
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 416


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3749 on: February 02, 2010, 10:56:27 pm »

Arkansas (Rasmussen)Sad

33% Approve
66% Disapprove

(Gov. Mike Beebe)

73% Approve
24% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Arkansas was conducted by Rasmussen Reports February 1, 2010. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arkansas/toplines/toplines_arkansas_senate_february_1_2010

.....

Gallup`s continued SOTU bump:

51% Approve (+1)
42% Disapprove (-2)

I predict that by 2012, Arkansas will vote similarly to Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Oklahoma.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 145 146 147 148 149 [150] 151 152 153 154 155 ... 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