Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 09, 2019, 09:26:11 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 387 388 389 390 391 [392] 393 394 395 396 397 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1022818 times)
HagridOfTheDeep
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,955
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -3.35, S: -2.96


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9775 on: June 12, 2012, 02:16:09 am »

I'm not sure I care.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,519
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9776 on: June 14, 2012, 08:22:49 am »

Sure. And this strange little world looks a lot like Earth, 2012. Where Obama has nothing to show for three and a half years in office but Americans still love the guy. It is pretty strange, isn't it?

1. Putting an end to the most severe and dangerous economic meltdown in nearly 80 years.

2. Much legislative activity.

3. American involvement in Iraq ended.

4. American involvement in Afghanistan winding down.

5. Anti-American sentiments vastly reduced.

6. Good handling of the Arab Spring.

7. Osama bin Ladin whacked. 
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,955
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -3.35, S: -2.96


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9777 on: June 14, 2012, 12:32:25 pm »

At least the other folks offered something specific and unsubjective. I'll give you 2.5 out of 7.
Logged
Solidarity Forever
Alfred F. Jones
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,021
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9778 on: June 14, 2012, 03:20:03 pm »

At least the other folks offered something specific and unsubjective. I'll give you 2.5 out of 7.

Which won't you give him?
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,854


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9779 on: June 18, 2012, 08:50:02 am »

Hey Hagrid, now you know how Democrats felt in 2004. A president that the other side hated somehow managed to win a second term in uncertain times. Karma's a bitch aint it?

The economy was pretty good in 2004.  Unemployment was around 5.5% and falling and GDP growth was about 3%. 
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,955
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -3.35, S: -2.96


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9780 on: June 18, 2012, 12:57:49 pm »

At least the other folks offered something specific and unsubjective. I'll give you 2.5 out of 7.

Which won't you give him?

1, 2, 5, and 6 are completely subjective. I get the half-point from 4.
Logged
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,653


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9781 on: June 18, 2012, 09:35:47 pm »
« Edited: June 18, 2012, 09:37:51 pm by The Vorlon »


So assuming that these polls are beginning to have more of a predictive value, where would we say we are at this point?


The "horse race" polls still have very weak predictive power, they are worth a glace in the sense that if Romney were to open up a consistent and stable lead it might mean something, but there is such a long way to go....

If you track losing Presidents, Carter had a big lead on Reagan at this point, and Bush #1 was still up on Bubba at this point in the race.

Job approval still is a far better predictor of outcome at this point, and the current results are pretty inconclusive.

If Obama's broad aggregate approval over an averaged range of polls is above 50% he is just about certain to win.  If the GOP had a super duper amazing candidate, you could maybe knock out Obama if he was 50%+, but this is not the case.

On the other hand, if Obama is below 45% by the same measure, he is pretty much doomed.

Bush II was polling very similarly to Obama in the summer of 2004.  Given that GOPers tend to gain a couple % when we shift to a likely voter model, and Dens tend to drop a point or two, I would say Obama is pretty much right on the bubble right now.

An interesting point will be how the shift in financial resources will impact the race.  In 2008 Obama had roughly a 2 to 1 financial advantage over McCain, and this allowed Obama to expand the playing field to places like North Carolina, Virginia, etc and McCain simply did not have the resources to fight back.

In 2012 it seems like outside GOP aligned groups (Crossroads GPS, Restore Our Future, etc) may come fairly close to bridging the spending gap that the Dems traditionally enjoy from Labor unions, Hollywood, etc.

GOP friendly groups might pour a lot of money into places like Pennsylvania and Michigan not so much to actually win those states, but to pull time and money from the Obama campaign away from places like Ohio and perhaps Virginia that are likely the pivotal states.

The continued decline of Dem friendly mainstream media and the rise of internet and alternative media also represents a shift that favors the GOP.

Right now, this looks like an amazingly close race to me.





Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,477


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9782 on: June 19, 2012, 01:57:55 am »

The rise of the internet helping the GOP? Dems usually enjoying a money advantage? Uh....

Interesting analysis otherwise. I also think this race is very tight, though I do think Obama's approval numbers underestimate how he would do against Romney or any other generic Republican (version 2012). There are groups out there that do not approve of the job Obama has done but voting for the Republicans is not a viable option.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,955
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -3.35, S: -2.96


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9783 on: June 19, 2012, 02:33:56 am »

On the other hand, there are groups of people who think Obama is doing an "okay" job but expected so much more of him. I think a sizable junk of Obama's approval is shaky and displeased approval. Those are the people who could be willing to give Mitt a chance.
Logged
WhyteRain
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 949
Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9784 on: June 19, 2012, 08:30:15 am »

After the Reagan Revolution of the early-80s, there were only two recessions an, d both were extraordinarily mild (the early 1990s and early 2000s).  That is why the Democrats think they can get away with claiming that the 2007-09 recession was "different, worse than every other recession".

Americans over 50 have an obligation to tell young people, that no, the recent recession was not substantially worse than either the 1973-75 or the 1980-82 ones.  The difference is that those recessions were followed by ROBUST recoveries.  GDP growth in 1976-78 averaged 5.5% and in 1983-85 averaged 6.0%.  Obama's GDP growth, 2010-12 (with two quarters left to go) has averaged a miserable 1.9%
Logged
Comrade Funk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,068
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -5.91

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9785 on: June 19, 2012, 09:05:01 am »

After the Reagan Revolution of the early-80s, there were only two recessions an, d both were extraordinarily mild (the early 1990s and early 2000s).  That is why the Democrats think they can get away with claiming that the 2007-09 recession was "different, worse than every other recession".

Americans over 50 have an obligation to tell young people, that no, the recent recession was not substantially worse than either the 1973-75 or the 1980-82 ones.  The difference is that those recessions were followed by ROBUST recoveries.  GDP growth in 1976-78 averaged 5.5% and in 1983-85 averaged 6.0%.  Obama's GDP growth, 2010-12 (with two quarters left to go) has averaged a miserable 1.9%
1.) The early 90s recession started because of the end of the Cold War, which saw the demise of a lot of defense industry jobs. 90s prosperity was due to the computer revolution and the dot.com bubble.
2.) The dot.com bubble recession saw the demise of most dot.com companies, and was mainly a market recession, though unemployment breifly reached 6%. Unlike the 90s, wages and family income never increased all that much. Not to mention the housing bubble was in it's infancy, which helped the market a lot.
3.) This recession alomst saw the demise of AIG and major investment banks. Without the bailouts and federal takeovers, it would have been another depression. There's a reason people and economists called it the worse financial collapse since the Great Depression, and this was before Obama became president.

Please continue to spin though.
Logged
WhyteRain
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 949
Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9786 on: June 19, 2012, 09:32:41 am »

After the Reagan Revolution of the early-80s, there were only two recessions an, d both were extraordinarily mild (the early 1990s and early 2000s).  That is why the Democrats think they can get away with claiming that the 2007-09 recession was "different, worse than every other recession".

Americans over 50 have an obligation to tell young people, that no, the recent recession was not substantially worse than either the 1973-75 or the 1980-82 ones.  The difference is that those recessions were followed by ROBUST recoveries.  GDP growth in 1976-78 averaged 5.5% and in 1983-85 averaged 6.0%.  Obama's GDP growth, 2010-12 (with two quarters left to go) has averaged a miserable 1.9%
1.) The early 90s recession started because of the end of the Cold War, which saw the demise of a lot of defense industry jobs. 90s prosperity was due to the computer revolution and the dot.com bubble.
2.) The dot.com bubble recession saw the demise of most dot.com companies, and was mainly a market recession, though unemployment breifly reached 6%. Unlike the 90s, wages and family income never increased all that much. Not to mention the housing bubble was in it's infancy, which helped the market a lot.
3.) This recession alomst saw the demise of AIG and major investment banks. Without the bailouts and federal takeovers, it would have been another depression. There's a reason people and economists called it the worse financial collapse since the Great Depression, and this was before Obama became president.

Please continue to spin though.

Since you didn't dispute anything I said, I'm not sure how to respond.

To "spin" again, I say that yes, the 2007-09 recession was long and deep -- but it was not substantially worse than either the 1973-75 or 1980-82 recessions.  The fact that there were (real and threatened) bank collapses in 2007-09 did not make it worse.  Anyway, the government has now given so much money to the banks that interest rates are, incredibly, going negative!  This is because so few Americans have the confidence to take out loans.

The fact is that all these recessions reached their deepest points in the first quarters of their last year -- in 1Q '75, 1Q '82, and 1Q '09.  That makes it easy to look at the next three calendar years for comparison.  From 1976-78, GNP growth averaged 5.5%; in 1983-85, 6.0%, now (with two quarters to go), 1.9%.  This is not how recessions are supposed to end. 

Even the mild recessions of the 1990s and early 2000s had better recoveries:  In 1992-94, annual growth averaged 3.8%; in 2003-05, 3.2%.

Btw, the cause of the financial collapse in 2008 was the housing bubble bursting.  And the cause of the housing bubble was government policies to "close the racial gap in home ownership".  Obama (1) supported these policies as a U.S. Senator, 2005-2008, and (2) has not ended them as president.
Logged
President von Cat
captain copernicus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 619


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9787 on: June 19, 2012, 10:46:19 am »

This recession is fundamentally different from the 70s and 80s ones, because those were the results of  the cyclical business cycle. This was the result of a financial crisis, and financial crises almost always result in low growth recoveries.
Logged
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,653


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9788 on: June 19, 2012, 12:49:21 pm »
« Edited: June 19, 2012, 12:51:45 pm by The Vorlon »

The rise of the internet helping the GOP? Dems usually enjoying a money advantage? Uh....


Actually, I said "internet and alternative media ".. which I do think is valid.

30 years ago there was the big networks and the newspapers which utterly dominated the flow of information... today there are a zillion sources...

The rise of "Talk Radio", as a classic example is clearly pretty darn helpful to the GOP.

The internet is, due to it's utter lack of centralization and control, a place where the GOP can compete.

For example, in 2004 when CBS and Dan Rather fabricated a story about Bush and his ANG days, the GOP and conservatives had a method and a medium to fight back with... if the same thing had happened in 1964 the fabrication likely would have represented a successful attack.

With respect to the traditional Dem spending advantage, this is well documented.

If you take the true value of the literally tens of thousands of paid political operatives who are paid by the likes of the Teacher's Union, UAW, AFL-CIO and then "volunteer" for various democratic candidates (thus not counting as a campaign expenditure) the Dems have held a rather large advantage in actual campaign resources for many years.

The unlimited spending allowed by "Citizens United" is, if one steps back and looks at it objectively, a counterweight to the unlimited Union expenditures that have gone on for decades.

Some sort of sanity would be nice on the campaign spending side, but at least having, essentially, no rules is fair in the sense that there are, well, no rules.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,477


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9789 on: June 19, 2012, 02:54:45 pm »

After the Reagan Revolution of the early-80s, there were only two recessions an, d both were extraordinarily mild (the early 1990s and early 2000s).  That is why the Democrats think they can get away with claiming that the 2007-09 recession was "different, worse than every other recession".

Americans over 50 have an obligation to tell young people, that no, the recent recession was not substantially worse than either the 1973-75 or the 1980-82 ones.  The difference is that those recessions were followed by ROBUST recoveries.  GDP growth in 1976-78 averaged 5.5% and in 1983-85 averaged 6.0%.  Obama's GDP growth, 2010-12 (with two quarters left to go) has averaged a miserable 1.9%
1.) The early 90s recession started because of the end of the Cold War, which saw the demise of a lot of defense industry jobs. 90s prosperity was due to the computer revolution and the dot.com bubble.
2.) The dot.com bubble recession saw the demise of most dot.com companies, and was mainly a market recession, though unemployment breifly reached 6%. Unlike the 90s, wages and family income never increased all that much. Not to mention the housing bubble was in it's infancy, which helped the market a lot.
3.) This recession alomst saw the demise of AIG and major investment banks. Without the bailouts and federal takeovers, it would have been another depression. There's a reason people and economists called it the worse financial collapse since the Great Depression, and this was before Obama became president.

Please continue to spin though.

Since you didn't dispute anything I said, I'm not sure how to respond.

To "spin" again, I say that yes, the 2007-09 recession was long and deep -- but it was not substantially worse than either the 1973-75 or 1980-82 recessions.  The fact that there were (real and threatened) bank collapses in 2007-09 did not make it worse.  Anyway, the government has now given so much money to the banks that interest rates are, incredibly, going negative!  This is because so few Americans have the confidence to take out loans.

The fact is that all these recessions reached their deepest points in the first quarters of their last year -- in 1Q '75, 1Q '82, and 1Q '09.  That makes it easy to look at the next three calendar years for comparison.  From 1976-78, GNP growth averaged 5.5%; in 1983-85, 6.0%, now (with two quarters to go), 1.9%.  This is not how recessions are supposed to end. 

Even the mild recessions of the 1990s and early 2000s had better recoveries:  In 1992-94, annual growth averaged 3.8%; in 2003-05, 3.2%.

Btw, the cause of the financial collapse in 2008 was the housing bubble bursting.  And the cause of the housing bubble was government policies to "close the racial gap in home ownership".  Obama (1) supported these policies as a U.S. Senator, 2005-2008, and (2) has not ended them as president.

This is a recession caused by plummeting house prices which affected nearly every home owners wealth. This meant they started deleveraging by not taking on other loans and increasing their savings rate. This is not the same as other recessions. When people need to reduce their debt load, the recovery is meek like we have seen. Any economist will tell you a recovery after a housing crash is going to be slow.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,519
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9790 on: June 20, 2012, 01:13:53 pm »

This recession is fundamentally different from the 70s and 80s ones, because those were the results of  the cyclical business cycle. This was the result of a financial crisis, and financial crises almost always result in low growth recoveries.

Right. The late 2007 - early 2009 meltdown looks much like (at least in severity and cause) to the first half of the late 1929 - late 1932 meltdown. America had been spared financial meltdowns because of Depression-era reforms that, so long as they were kept in place, prevented the corruption and recklessness that made possible the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929 and ensuing nastiness. Repeal of Glass-Steagall was a bad idea.  The 'Ownership Society' of Dubya proved a destructive hustle based on overpriced real estate and predatory lending.

Other downturns may be linked to the end of big construction projects such as giant bridges and dams. Such downturns allow recoveries in part from reduced costs of doing business and the eventual start of new such projects. The Golden Gate, Mackinac, and Verrazzano Bridges pay for themselves. The financial meltdown of 2007-2009 simply devoured capital with less-than-full compensation.

Lending at its best is in essence the recycling of capital with a little profit to the lender. The competent lender typically lends the proceeds of a successful loan as it is paid off to a new borrower. Meyer Rothschild established a wise principle: Never make a loan unless the loan is good for the borrower (typically for starting or enlarging a business). Such is not charity except by contrast to loan-shark activities that inevitably hurt the borrower. People doing well by borrowing to promote their own economic gain are good clients for repeated borrowings or become repositories of the capital for other loans.

A meltdown that destroyed the accumulation of roughly 15 years of capital formation will not be undone quickly. Anyone who expects otherwise is a visionary... fool.     
Logged
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,653


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9791 on: June 20, 2012, 11:02:41 pm »
« Edited: June 20, 2012, 11:06:34 pm by The Vorlon »


This is a recession caused by plummeting house prices which affected nearly every home owners wealth. This meant they started deleveraging by not taking on other loans and increasing their savings rate. This is not the same as other recessions. When people need to reduce their debt load, the recovery is meek like we have seen. Any economist will tell you a recovery after a housing crash is going to be slow.


This recession is fundamentally different from the 70s and 80s ones, because those were the results of  the cyclical business cycle. This was the result of a financial crisis, and financial crises almost always result in low growth recoveries.

In some respects you are both talking about different manifestations of the same root cause - Government policy distorting the "true" value of a major element of the economy by way of assorted silly policies.

In the late 70s the substantial growth of the government, first with LBJ and the War + the "great society" then Nixon with the decoupling of the Dollar from Gold (I don't support tying the currency to Gold, but I do support anchoring it to "something" other than government whim and folly) then Carter with his insane energy policies (among other economic madneses) diluted and debased the currency while artificially driving many prices (primarily energy) upward. - After a while 10% inflation got "baked into the cake" and tainted any and all long term economic planning. - In some respects the 1980 era recession was "planned" in the sense the Volker and company judged that 20% interest rates were they only way to wring inflation out of the system.

The 2008 housing bubble also had at it's root silly government policy.  The demand for housing was artificially massively inflated by, essentially, mandating that Fanny and Ginny guarantee loans to people who in any remotely sane universe simply has no business buying a home.  

This broke the "iron law" of economics that requires that the entity making the profit from a loan also needs to take the hit if the loan goes bad. (This is the same reason why life insurance salesmen don't get to do their own underwriting) When banks and other institutions could make all the profit from a loan (the points, the fees, etc) and then shift the risk to the taxpayer....  well.... what ultimately happened was damn near inevitable.....  It would have been utterly astonishing if the market DIDN'T collapse.

My beef with Obama folks on housing is that they have slow walked the pain.

A house that sold for $400K that is now worth $200K means somewhere there is going to need to be $200K worth of pain.... the market and every sane economist and investor knows this, and until this pain is inflicted upon somebody, nobody will invest.  The "pain" is like winter snow in the mountains - it's gonna melt, the question is just when....

If you factor in inflation, interest rates are now negative.. what does that say?

The smart folks (the ones with trillions of dollars) have concluded that a negative rate of return is the best possible choice for their money right now.  Until that changes the chances of new factories, plants, businesses being created in adequate numbers is pretty much zero.

Logged
Minnesota Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,097


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9792 on: June 24, 2012, 12:17:57 pm »

So Obama jumped 5 points to 51% approval today (51-45). I actually think that is close to where we are at but the volatility is absurd.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,971
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9793 on: June 29, 2012, 09:37:06 am »

Obama takes first lead in 3 weeks @ Rasmussen today:

45-44 Obama

49-49 Approval (+2, -2)

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,971
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9794 on: June 29, 2012, 12:08:21 pm »

Gallup is also moving slightly towards Obama today (but caution, it's a 7-day tracker):

48-43 Obama/Romney
47-46 Obama Approval
Logged
Lief 🐋
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,559
Dominica


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9795 on: June 29, 2012, 01:55:52 pm »

Clearly the SCOTUS ruling has doomed Obama.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,477


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9796 on: June 29, 2012, 03:45:56 pm »

Yeah, Obama's gonna lose by 20 points now.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,955
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -3.35, S: -2.96


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9797 on: June 29, 2012, 04:57:38 pm »

Obamacare ruling came out yesterday. Give it some time.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,971
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9798 on: June 30, 2012, 09:35:51 am »

Rasmussen:

50% Approve
49% Disapprove

46% Obama
44% Romney

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
philly09
Full Member
***
Posts: 129


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9799 on: July 01, 2012, 05:13:50 pm »
« Edited: July 01, 2012, 05:16:03 pm by philly09 »

Gallup

48 Approve

46 Disapprove

47/44 Obama/Romney

He's mirroring GWB's numbers.

Rassmussen

48 Approve

51 Disapprove

45/45 Obama/Romney
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 387 388 389 390 391 [392] 393 394 395 396 397 ... 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