The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[BigSkyBob]

Just for reference, when did President Reagan's approval ratings start increasing enough to ensure his reelection?

Close to the time the economy starting perking up significantly.

[BigSkyBob]

So, should we start checking to see if Obama's disapproval can stay below 50%?

I'm looking for Rasmussen's strong disapproval ratings reaching the upper 40's.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 43, +1.

Disapprove 56%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 20%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 43%, u.

[J. J.]

Just for reference, when did President Reagan's approval ratings start increasing enough to ensure his reelection?

On Gallup, an important qualifier, RWR hit is low of 35% in late January 1983.  By this point in 1983, RWR was at 49%, so he had hit his low and recovered a lot.

GHWB, by contrast, was at 66% at this point 1991, but he had had a steep decline from 89% in March (not unexpectedly).

BHO, on the same poll, hit his low of 40% in October of this year and is at 41% in late October.

Note that I am using this chart for historic comparisons.  http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

I basically am looking for the point where the incumbent hits the low point and starts improving.  My analogy is from WW I, "von Kluck's Turn."  It was the point where the situation began to get a bit better for the Allies.  Obama, may have hit that point.

[President von Cat]

Gallup:

Approve: 44%, +1
Disapprove: 47% -2

Perhaps some movement due to the end of Gaddafi, the end of the Iraq War and relatively decent nuts and bolts economic data? Big corporations had good earnings releases, jobless claims are below 400,000 and the DJI had a great close on Friday.

Lets wait and see how he is doing a week from now before we say he has turned a corner. Financial markets may get bludgeoned if Europe doesn't deliver this week, and that may set back Obama's approvals.

[Scott Inman (D) OK Gov 2018]

Just for reference, when did President Reagan's approval ratings start increasing enough to ensure his reelection?

On Gallup, an important qualifier, RWR hit is low of 35% in late January 1983.  By this point in 1983, RWR was at 49%, so he had hit his low and recovered a lot.

GHWB, by contrast, was at 66% at this point 1991, but he had had a steep decline from 89% in March (not unexpectedly).

BHO, on the same poll, hit his low of 40% in October of this year and is at 41% in late October.

Note that I am using this chart for historic comparisons.  http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

I basically am looking for the point where the incumbent hits the low point and starts improving.  My analogy is from WW I, "von Kluck's Turn."  It was the point where the situation began to get a bit better for the Allies.  Obama, may have hit that point.

IMHO, Obama better start improving quick with the Republican primaries around the corner and the general election only 12 1/2 months away.  If Reagan started improving some 9-10 months before this point in 1983, and Obama has only "improved" 1 point, he'd better get busy or he could be a gonner.

[J. J.]

Gallup:

Approve: 44%, +1
Disapprove: 47% -2

Perhaps some movement due to the end of Gaddafi, the end of the Iraq War and relatively decent nuts and bolts economic data? Big corporations had good earnings releases, jobless claims are below 400,000 and the DJI had a great close on Friday.

Lets wait and see how he is doing a week from now before we say he has turned a corner. Financial markets may get bludgeoned if Europe doesn't deliver this week, and that may set back Obama's approvals.

Or just noise.

[The Vorlon]

Gallup:

Approve 42
Disapprove 50

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx



Bouncing around a lot, even for Gallup.

30 and 60 day averages are staying at -10 or so.

Looking at all the polls Obama may be firming up a tad.

When in doubt - look at the NBC/WSJ poll which says 44/51, which to my eyes looks pretty darn close to reality.

[The Vorlon]

Or just noise.

When Gallup is running off on it's own, usually the best bet

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45, +2.

Disapprove 54%, -2.

"Strongly Approve" is at 19%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 40%, -3.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44%, -1.

Disapprove 54%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 18%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 40%, u.


The Strongly Approve number is now at a record low, though it just could be a natural swing.

[Fixed "Approved."  It was down by one, not two, points.]

[The Vorlon]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44%, -2.

Disapprove 54%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 18%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 40%, u.


The Strongly Approve number is now at a record low, though it just could be a natural swing.

Pretty much the same strong approve / strong disapprove numbers that Democracy Corpse (D) got. - 21 versus -22.


Strongly approve ..................................................................21
Somewhat approve ..............................................................19
Somewhat disapprove..........................................................11
Strongly disapprove .............................................................42

When Bush was in the mid to high 40s in 2003 and 2004, at  least his "strong approve" numbers were still not too far off his strong disapprove.

In the context of such a large enthusiasm gap, Obama's efforts to throw some "red meat" to the Democratic base make a lot of sense. - Bush beat Kerry in 2004 (mostly) because the Bush folks loved Bush a bit more than the Kerry folks hated him.  I think Obama's more class warfare (edit, trying to resist trolling tendency) "populist" focus of late lies in the reality.

[pbrower2a]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44%, -2.

Disapprove 54%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 18%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 40%, u.


The Strongly Approve number is now at a record low, though it just could be a natural swing.

Pretty much the same strong approve / strong disapprove numbers that Democracy Corpse (D) got. - 21 versus -22.


Strongly approve ..................................................................21
Somewhat approve ..............................................................19
Somewhat disapprove..........................................................11
Strongly disapprove .............................................................42

When Bush was in the mid to high 40s in 2003 and 2004, at  least his "strong approve" numbers were still not too far off his strong disapprove.

In the context of such a large enthusiasm gap, Obama's efforts to throw some "red meat" to the Democratic base make a lot of sense. - Bush beat Kerry in 2004 (mostly) because the Bush folks loved Bush a bit more than the Kerry folks hated him.  I think Obama's more class warfare (edit, trying to resist trolling tendency) "populist" focus of late lies in the reality.

President Obama didn't run as a populist in 2008. He steered clear of class warfare, seeming to suggest that (as Ronald Reagan did) that a rising tide raises all boats. It is unambiguously clear that the recovery that we have (or had) has been uneven in results.

The Tea Party that formed to oppose him and restore the power of the Right found its populist appeal first -- even if the appeal has huge faults, as it has proved anti-worker and anti-middle-class. That sort of populism has huge faults.

People are angry at elites who have waxed fat while degrading everyone else. If the prosperity that those elites seek depends upon the impoverishing of everyone else, then it will be difficult for Republicans to defend those elites and the objectives of those elites.

President Obama has stayed clear of negativistic smears upon his rivals. So far he is positioning himself first against the Republicans in Congress. The negative ads against any Republican nominee are likely to begin at an apt time.     

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 43%, -1.

Disapprove 55%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 19%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 40%, u.

[pbrower2a]

I am not resuscitating the old map that I created. It had gotten messy.

It may be hard to believe that the President can win a state despite a plurality of people in the state believing that he does not deserve a second term and despite having an approval rating of 43%  or so nationwide. Ohio, not surprisingly, is very close to the national average.  The President can win without Ohio, but he can hardly lose with it.  No current GOP candidate can win without Ohio.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No American likes his own economic distress... but no GOP candidate seems to offer a viable alternative.

[The Vorlon]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 43%, -1.

Disapprove 55%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 19%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 40%, u.

we are not quite there, but we are starting to get the the point in time where these approval ratings begin (very dimly) to have some predictive value.

Starting early next year they start to mean something.

the head to heads are, of course, meaningless.  PEW did a poll and found that less than 50% can, unprompted, name even one GOP presidential candidate, so the head to heads are jibberish.

The only poll that is semi-meaningful right now is Obama's "deserves to be re-elected" and/or Obama versus the mythical generic republican.

Obama's getting low 40s on both of these.  Not good, but not dead in the water either.  I would call it somewhat to the darker side of the grey area at this point.

[pbrower2a]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 43%, -1.

Disapprove 55%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 19%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 40%, u.

we are not quite there, but we are starting to get the the point in time where these approval ratings begin (very dimly) to have some predictive value.

Starting early next year they start to mean something.

the head to heads are, of course, meaningless.  PEW did a poll and found that less than 50% can, unprompted, name even one GOP presidential candidate, so the head to heads are jibberish.

The only poll that is semi-meaningful right now is Obama's "deserves to be re-elected" and/or Obama versus the mythical generic republican.

Obama's getting low 40s on both of these.  Not good, but not dead in the water either.  I would call it somewhat to the darker side of the grey area at this point.

The head-to-head match-ups are relevant. People are watching the political scene,  People have been watching the Republican debates, and the Republican candidates are far-better known than has been the case in the recent past.   The political figures are as well known at the least as figures of popular culture.

News coverage of the President is nothing spectacular. But Republican candidates are getting much attention; they are carping at the President nearly non-stop. They have a head start... and so far they show themselves ineffective in showing the President as a fool, crook, or an unqualified failure. This is with a horrible economy.

The average gain from an approval rating to the share of the vote for an incumbent Senator or Governor is 6%, and that is probably much the same for the President. From 43% that suggests that the incumbent President would end up with 49% of the popular vote with the challenger getting 51% and losing.

That is far from exact. Much  matters, including breaking scandals, the economy, military or diplomatic successes and debacles, and of course the quality of campaigns of the incumbent and challenger. Without question, President Obama would likely go down to a Republican as strong as Ronald Reagan who has no regional weaknesses and knows how to modulate his language to seem more moderate than he is. This President is a complete mismatch for much of America -- the Deep South except for blacks, the oil patch of America, and the culturally-similar areas of the Ozarks and the middle and southern Appalachians (basically the mountainous areas east of the Rockies to the south of roughly Binghamton, New York).

So why the 6% gain on the average? The incumbent, first of all, has usually shown the ability to win  the election that got him in. For every President of the twentieth century except for Gerald Ford (who had never won a statewide race) such has been true. The incumbent has responsibilities in office that preclude him from campaigning 24-7 -- as a legislator and as an administrator. Some of those, like the budgetary process, can be messy. Incumbents get pinned down for policy; challengers can usually get away with talking out of both sides of their mouths, at least early, perhaps saying one thing in Vermont and another in Wyoming or saying one thing at the Sierra Club and another at a convention of the American Petroleum Institute.

But it is an average. That depends on an average incumbent against an average challenger. Some incumbents won by piecing together coalitions that cannot endure for four years (prime example -- Jimmy Carter); sometimes the challengers are unusually weak (McGovern) and sometimes they are unusually strong (Clinton). Incumbents run on their records and win or run from their records and lose. Challengers usually run on the weaknesses of the records of incumbents.  For good reason eight of thirteen incumbent Presidents running for re-election beginning in 2000 got re-elected, which isn't a random result.   

What I just said in the preceding paragraph is mush. The story of the 2012 election is far from written. If I say that the President has roughly a 60% chance of re-election, then that is consistent with "8 of 13".

 

[The Vorlon]

I guess we just disagree on the facts.

Let's look at Gallup approval ratings of all presidents starting with Truman eligible to seek re-election, and see how they did versus the 1st quarter Gallup approval ratings in the year of their (potential) re-election:

Gallup approval ratings - Last poll in 1st quarter of (potential) re-election year:

Sorted from most popular 1st quarter of the election year to least popular:

Presidents Over 50% - Every single one re-elected

Eisenhower 1956 - 1st Quarter approval - 1956 => Low to mid 70s approval => Re-elected

Johnson 1964 - 1st Quarter 1964 => mid 70s approval => Re-elected

Reagan 1984 - 1st Quarter 1984 => 54%  => reelected

Nixon 1972 - 1st Quarter 1972 => 53% approval => Re-elected

GW Bush - 1st Quarter 2004 = 53% approval => Re-elected

Clinton 1996 - 1st Quarter 1996 = 52% approval => Re-elected


President who polled 46% to 50% in 1st Quarter lost very narrowly

Ford 1976 1st Quarter 1976 => 50% approval => Very Narrowly defeated


Presidents Below 50% - Every single one defeated or choose not to seek re-election

Obama - Fall 2011 - 43% +/- - Result TBA

GHW Bush - 1st Quarter 1992 = 41% => Defeated

Carter 1980 - 1st Quarter 1980 => 39%  => defeated

Johnson 1968 - 1st quarter 36% approval => Choose not to seek re-election

Truman 1952 - 1st Quarter 1952 - 36% approval => Choose not to seek re-election




Hmmm..

The 50% rule in the 1st quarter of the election year has gone 11 for 11 and predicted re-election (or not) with 100% accuracy in every presidential election since Truman....

Naturally, "Rules of thumb" work perfectly till they don't work anymore, but that being said:

The "50%" rule was not pulled out the air, it has a solid historical basis....

If you think Obama's 43% gets him 4 more years you are... at odds with the historical data...

[J. J.]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 43%, u.

Disapprove 55%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 19%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, +2.

[pbrower2a]

I guess we just disagree on the facts.

Let's look at Gallup approval ratings of all presidents starting with Truman eligible to seek re-election, and see how they did versus the 1st quarter Gallup approval ratings in the year of their (potential) re-election:

Gallup approval ratings - Last poll in 1st quarter of (potential) re-election year:

Sorted from most popular 1st quarter of the election year to least popular:

Presidents Over 50% - Every single one re-elected

Eisenhower 1956 - 1st Quarter approval - 1956 => Low to mid 70s approval => Re-elected

Johnson 1964 - 1st Quarter 1964 => mid 70s approval => Re-elected

Reagan 1984 - 1st Quarter 1984 => 54%  => reelected

Nixon 1972 - 1st Quarter 1972 => 53% approval => Re-elected

GW Bush - 1st Quarter 2004 = 53% approval => Re-elected

Clinton 1996 - 1st Quarter 1996 = 52% approval => Re-elected


President who polled 46% to 50% in 1st Quarter lost very narrowly

Ford 1976 1st Quarter 1976 => 50% approval => Very Narrowly defeated


Presidents Below 50% - Every single one defeated or choose not to seek re-election

Obama - Fall 2011 - 43% +/- - Result TBA

GHW Bush - 1st Quarter 1992 = 41% => Defeated

Carter 1980 - 1st Quarter 1980 => 39%  => defeated

Johnson 1968 - 1st quarter 36% approval => Choose not to seek re-election

Truman 1948 - 1st Quarter 1948 - 36% approval => Choose not to seek re-election




Hmmm..

The 50% rule in the 1st quarter of the election year has gone 11 for 11 and predicted re-election (or not) with 100% accuracy in every presidential election since Truman....

Naturally, "Rules of thumb" work perfectly till they don't work anymore, but that being said:

The "50%" rule was not pulled out the air, it has a solid historical basis....

If you think Obama's 43% gets him 4 more years you are... at odds with the historical data...

You have "Truman 1948" confused with "Truman 1952".

The President's low approval ratings relate to (1) the putrid economy, and (2) the unwillingness of the Republicans in Congress to allow him to pass any legislation. Republicans still have culpability for the economy, and the latter probably explains why Congress has such a putrid approval rating of its own.

The polls are also jumping up and down, depending upon recent events.

No Presidential election has ever gotten so much early attention as this one. Republican challengers to the President have placed themselves in the spotlight early. Ordinarily the people running against an incumbent President don't get the attention that they do now. As an example, Barack Obama was not particularly well-known a year before he was elected. But now, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin are very well  known. I would say that they are all better known than... Luis Pujols. 

Barack Obama is clearly not so awful that just about anyone could beat him. Were he that awful, you would see matchups like Palin 55, Obama 41 all over the map.  I look at recent polls in Ohio and see President Obama up by 4% over Romney and bigger over everyone else. A 4% gap hardly looks insurmountable because it isn't. It will be just as possible for the President to extend that gap as for Romney to cut into it. When it comes to the likes of Perry, Palin, and Bachmann they had their chances.

The Republican challengers to the President have exposed their positions early. That implies that the President's campaign has plenty of time in which to formulate a negative campaign against any candidate who talks out of both sides of his mouth. Someone who poses as a moderate yet cuts deals with extremists to the offense of moderate sensibilities will be nailed for that in due time.

Americans are getting more frustrated with politics. The Tea Party offered a solution -- and that solution isn't exactly chamomile.   

[The Vorlon]

The only poll that is semi-meaningful right now is Obama's "deserves to be re-elected" and/or Obama versus the mythical generic republican.

Obama's getting low 40s on both of these.  Not good, but not dead in the water either.  I would call it somewhat to the darker side of the grey area at this point.

[Politico]

He has a chance just like the Indianapolis Colts still have a chance of winning the Super Bowl this year.

[The Vorlon]

He has a chance just like the Indianapolis Colts still have a chance of winning the Super Bowl this year.

Hey Peyton could come back, and they could go 9 in a row, and 9-7 could get them into the playoffs

And the economy could turn around, and Obamacare might actually save money, and ........

[Phony Moderate]

He has a chance just like the Indianapolis Colts still have a chance of winning the Super Bowl this year.

Hey Peyton could come back, and they could go 9 in a row, and 9-7 could get them into the playoffs

And the economy could turn around, and Obamacare might actually save money, and ........

.....and you might finally get a girl

Fuck off.

[The Professor]

He has a chance just like the Indianapolis Colts still have a chance of winning the Super Bowl this year.

Hey Peyton could come back, and they could go 9 in a row, and 9-7 could get them into the playoffs

And the economy could turn around, and Obamacare might actually save money, and ........

.....and you might finally get a girl

Fuck off.

You can't talk to me that way. I'm going to have to report you and your vulgar, virgin mouth to the dean. Unless of course you apologize to me right this instant. I'm not the type of person to hold grudges.