Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 21, 2020, 03:01:06 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 ... 268 269 270 271 272 [273] 274 275 276 277 278 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1026419 times)
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,722
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6800 on: November 24, 2010, 11:15:08 am »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 48%, +1.

Disapprove 51%, -1. 

"Strongly Approve" is at 28%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, u.

We probably won't get any more real numbers until after the holiday.

I think that we will see lots of them after the new Congress is seated. We shall see whether the election of some Republicans was a fluke and whether some of them do good jobs with their new fame (or infamy).
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,874


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6801 on: November 25, 2010, 09:21:06 pm »

PPP, NC

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_1123.pdf

One of the closest states in 2008, and as things look, it will be very close in 2012. I am now assigning only a 5% likely gain for 45% Obama can win without North Carolina, but can't lose with it. He would lose to some candidates, tie with some, and win against some others in the Tarheel State.



Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60%-69% or higher disapproval); 90% red if >70%
40-42% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
43% to 45% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Yellow  
46-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow  
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)

<50%  Approval greater: 30% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-59%: 60% Green
60%+: 80% Green
DC, what else could you expect?


Months (All polls are from 2010):

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

 

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), or more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Partisan polls and polls for special interests (trade associations, labor unions, ethnic associations) are excluded.

Z- no recent poll

MY CURRENT PREDICTION OF THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

(before any campaigning begins in earnest)Sad

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



District of Columbia, assumed to be about a 90% win for Obama,                  
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin  
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5%
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less)
pale blue                  Republican  under 5%  
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  




44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 46%, 5% at 46%, 4% between 47% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 52% or 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

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

*Note that I have expanded the "too close to call" to include those states  in which the incumbent President's approval rating is 43% to 45%.



I dont get this "44% rule" that you have.  Gerald Ford had an approval rating of about 47% in 1976 and still couldnt get reelected.  HW Bush had an approval rating of around 40% and lost in a landslide. 
Logged
fezzyfestoon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,210
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6802 on: November 25, 2010, 11:17:38 pm »

Don't worry too much about it, Mr. Phips, it's just a way the hack extraordinaire justifies Obama's mediocre approval ratings.  There's nothing real behind it other than a default defense of everything Obama or Democratic.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,722
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6803 on: November 25, 2010, 11:24:47 pm »
« Edited: November 26, 2010, 01:09:47 am by pbrower2a »



I dont get this "44% rule" that you have.  Gerald Ford had an approval rating of about 47% in 1976 and still couldnt get reelected.  HW Bush had an approval rating of around 40% and lost in a landslide.  

It's not my rule; it's one that Nate Silver came up with for an incumbent Governor or Senator running for re-election in a statewide race in 2009.  It applies only to incumbents running for the same office (it would rule out Charlie Crist in Florida in 2010 for that reason alone) without a significant third-party or independent candidacy for the election (so it would rule out Charlie Crist or Lisa Murkowski who were the third-party or independent challenges!)... or GHWB in 1992 (because of Ross Perot).

In general, an incumbent whose approval rating is at 44% has roughly a 50-50 chance of winning re-election in a statewide race.  Why isn't 50% the cut-off? Because incumbents aren't campaigning every moment of their elected term. They have other things to do -- like voting, serving on committees, governing, and other such things defined reasonably as part of the job which do little to contribute to the image of an elected official. So you figure that a Senator from Michigan who is missing votes so that he can make speeches at a Rotary meeting in Traverse City or attending a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a Wendy's in Pontiac isn't doing his job and would probably lose a bid for re-election -- which would be shown in approval polls, anyway. Scandals? Everyone sees them but the candidate and his strongest supporters. Scandal-plagued candidates often become very secretive and unresponsive, which usually tears at their approval ratings. Economic disasters? They usually offer some warning.  

But once the expected duties of an elected official come to an end and campaign season begins, an elected incumbent can start doing things to make his image better --- like talking about his priorities for the next term, showing where he stands on popular issues (if those stands are unpopular, he's probably doing very badly to begin with), and making stump speeches. An incumbent running for election has a higher likelihood of winning than does a challenger, typically because the incumbent is better known. But well-known and disliked isn't good for re-election.

Silver showed that the average incumbent gained 6% from approval six months before the election to the vote share in the general election. This applied to all incumbents, whether their approval was below 40% (who almost always lost) to those with approval ratings in the 60% (who piled on the votes). This applied just as well in Presidential, midterm, and odd-year elections.

The rule isn't hard and fast. One incumbent (George Allen) had an approval rating barely above 50% going into the 2006 election... and lost. He was a glaring exception, and you can likely attribute his loss to some extreme faux pas during his campaign and an unusually-strong challenger.  There are candidates who run campaigns of extreme ineptitude, have a scandal, or get pulled into a knock-down drag-out fight in a primary. It is an average, and it contradicts a more intuitive explanation such as reversion to the mean.  

Incumbents who lost (Gov. Strickland in Ohio, Senators Lincoln in Arkansas and Feingold in Wisconsin) had trouble from the start of their electoral campaigns. I can't tell how the vicious anti-liberal campaign by well-heeled backers of Hard Right candidates  had an effect on races involving incumbents... and if such Orwellian propaganda shapes voting, then we are in new and undiscovered territory for our political future -- and any liberal or moderate nominee, incumbent, challenger, or candidate for an open seat will have a tough time except in the safest of seats.

Much the same pattern holds for Presidential races for the popular vote. But that is not enough, as President Al Gore showed. Presidential races are fifty statewide elections (run much like a Gubernatorial or Senatorial race on behalf of the Presidential nominee), one district-wide at-large race (DC), and five congressional races that run independently of the states (two districts in Maine and one in Nebraska).  DC is a given, and generally the congressional districts are ignored.    

Non-incumbents must make promises; incumbents have records to stand on and win or run from and lose.  Incumbents faring badly must make promises to do what they haven't yet done (like Carter in 1980, and that showed in his low approval ratings going into the election). Incumbents campaigning ineptly fail, too. Gerald Ford lost to one of the weakest challengers ever (Jimmy Carter)  perhaps because he had no idea of how to run a national or even a statewide campaign. (The primary challenge by Ronald Reagan didn't help, either). Before becoming President Gerald Ford had never held a statewide office. Running for election (he had never been elected President, so his status as an incumbent was shaky) he made numerous faux pas on the campaign trail and badly chose where to campaign. Carter won a bunch of states then drifting R (including Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina that no Democratic nominee has since won.  Either Texas or Ohio and some other state would have won the election for Ford.

It is vote share, so it ignores minor candidates. Incumbents can win 49.2-48.7, and if you ignore the votes wasted on third-party candidates who fare badly, Silver would consider that a win of the majority of votes that count. It is an average. Occasionally an incumbent faces an unusually-strong challenger or is unusually inept campaigning. But the other side is that the incumbent is an unusually strong campaigner.

If the President's approval ratings are in the high forties now when he isn't doing any campaigning, then just think of how he can do in 2012. Sure, things can go terribly wrong before November 2012 -- but that will show up in approval polls. But they can also go very right.  If he is the average candidate for re-election,  a 47% approval rating goes up to a likely 53% in the vote share, which is roughly what he did in 2008.

(Note that I mute the effect for states way out of contention in my model for the President. Some shoo-in for re-election in one state doesn't need  to campaign in another state and has no chance to campaign elsewhere and gain votes in others if running for re-election as a Governor or Senator. Such is not quite the case for the President. If Idaho and Vermont are sure things for both sides, then I don;t expect President Obama to campaign in either state in 2012. President Obama isn't going to try to run up the score in Vermont or try to make the idaho vote total look 'reasonable').  
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,722
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6804 on: November 25, 2010, 11:26:19 pm »

Don't worry too much about it, Mr. Phips, it's just a way the hack extraordinaire justifies Obama's mediocre approval ratings.  There's nothing real behind it other than a default defense of everything Obama or Democratic.

So says someone whose avatar is a convicted criminal.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,310


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6805 on: November 25, 2010, 11:29:41 pm »

Don't worry too much about it, Mr. Phips, it's just a way the hack extraordinaire justifies Obama's mediocre approval ratings.  There's nothing real behind it other than a default defense of everything Obama or Democratic.

So says someone whose avatar is a convicted criminal.

OH BURN WHAT
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,525
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6806 on: November 25, 2010, 11:30:15 pm »

Don't worry too much about it, Mr. Phips, it's just a way the hack extraordinaire justifies Obama's mediocre approval ratings.  There's nothing real behind it other than a default defense of everything Obama or Democratic.

So says someone whose avatar is a convicted criminal.

lol
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,153
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6807 on: November 25, 2010, 11:50:21 pm »

Don't worry too much about it, Mr. Phips, it's just a way the hack extraordinaire justifies Obama's mediocre approval ratings.  There's nothing real behind it other than a default defense of everything Obama or Democratic.

So says someone whose avatar is a convicted criminal.

Logged
fezzyfestoon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,210
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6808 on: November 25, 2010, 11:55:00 pm »

Don't worry too much about it, Mr. Phips, it's just a way the hack extraordinaire justifies Obama's mediocre approval ratings.  There's nothing real behind it other than a default defense of everything Obama or Democratic.
So says someone whose avatar is a convicted criminal.

Hahahaha and?
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,310


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6809 on: November 26, 2010, 12:02:57 am »

Don't worry too much about it, Mr. Phips, it's just a way the hack extraordinaire justifies Obama's mediocre approval ratings.  There's nothing real behind it other than a default defense of everything Obama or Democratic.
So says someone whose avatar is a convicted criminal.

Hahahaha and?

YOU GONE FIGHT PBOWERS DOGZZ MAYNNEEEE U BETTA WARN HIM!
Logged
fezzyfestoon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,210
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6810 on: November 26, 2010, 12:14:49 am »

Naaaah, maaane I ain't gone do nuthin but...

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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6811 on: November 26, 2010, 08:57:21 am »

Fezzy is an Eagles fan that would sell his soul for a Lombardi. Unfortunately for him, he and many others do not realize that flash and no class would not do as well as an actual quarterback (Kolb) in the playoffs.
Logged
fezzyfestoon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,210
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6812 on: November 26, 2010, 12:38:03 pm »

Haha Giants fan?
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6813 on: November 26, 2010, 09:10:54 pm »


Nope.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,525
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6814 on: November 26, 2010, 10:09:09 pm »

Shouldn't this thread be titled the Official NFL Quarterbacks Discussion Thread?
Logged
Iosif
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,609


Political Matrix
E: -1.68, S: -3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6815 on: November 27, 2010, 12:20:40 pm »

Fezzy is an Eagles fan that would sell his soul for a Lombardi. Unfortunately for him, he and many others do not realize that flash and no class would not do as well as an actual quarterback (Kolb) in the playoffs.

I get it. Get the black workhouse to graft his team to the playoffs only for the great white hope to swoop in and take all the glory.
Logged
Lizzzard
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 51,488
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6816 on: November 28, 2010, 02:49:49 am »

Back to the real world:

California (SurveyUSA, Nov. 22): 55% Approve, 43% Disapprove

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=c717d146-99e7-4de8-8217-9fb792fc2fb8

Kansas (SurveyUSA, Nov. 22): 44% Approve, 53% Disapprove

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=c9cb9d95-0451-467c-8613-efb0bf5d4a7e

Oregon (SurveyUSA, Nov. 22): 46% Approve, 51% Disapprove

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=87dabdb7-5435-402e-891e-11b3bf475127

Washington (SurveyUSA, Nov. 22): 50% Approve, 47% Disapprove

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=c34262fe-7152-4e56-be8d-dd7e32b0f6dd
Logged
fezzyfestoon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,210
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6817 on: November 28, 2010, 02:59:34 am »


Oh
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,722
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6818 on: November 28, 2010, 07:32:21 am »


Kansas 44% and Oregon 46%?  Kansas looks way too high and Oregon too low.




Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60%-69% or higher disapproval); 90% red if >70%
40-42% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
43% to 45% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Yellow  
46-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow  
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)

<50%  Approval greater: 30% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-59%: 60% Green
60%+: 80% Green
DC, what else could you expect?


Months (All polls are from 2010):

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

 

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), or more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Partisan polls and polls for special interests (trade associations, labor unions, ethnic associations) are excluded.

Z- no recent poll

MY CURRENT PREDICTION OF THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

(before any campaigning begins in earnest)Sad

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



District of Columbia, assumed to be about a 90% win for Obama,                  
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin  
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5%
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less)
pale blue                  Republican  under 5%  
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  




44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 46%, 5% at 46%, 4% between 47% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 52% or 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

 This model applies only to incumbents, who have plenty of advantages but not enough to rescue an unqualified failure.
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6819 on: November 28, 2010, 08:03:57 am »

You missed my post about NJ again. Do I need to repost it?
Logged
fezzyfestoon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,210
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6820 on: November 28, 2010, 11:18:12 am »

You missed my post about NJ again. Do I need to repost it?

Sure, go for it.
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6821 on: November 28, 2010, 01:27:34 pm »


I meant pbrower. He doesn't have NJ listed, and it had a post election poll.
Logged
Ben Romney
Hillary2012
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 395
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6822 on: November 28, 2010, 05:42:05 pm »

If he is down in oR to 46% he never gets 44% in KS-not possible
Logged
fezzyfestoon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,210
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6823 on: November 28, 2010, 11:35:24 pm »

I meant pbrower. He doesn't have NJ listed, and it had a post election poll.

Oh.  I still don't get you
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,907
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6824 on: November 29, 2010, 10:14:32 am »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47%, -1.

Disapprove 52%, +1. 

"Strongly Approve" is at 27%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 43%, +1.


Logged
Pages: 1 ... 268 269 270 271 272 [273] 274 275 276 277 278 ... 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