Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 19, 2019, 06:57:44 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (Primary) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1016131 times)
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« on: March 16, 2009, 09:46:55 pm »

Obama's approvals will inevitably fall below 50%. The only question is whether it comes in June, July, August, September, etc.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2009, 11:56:00 pm »

My suspicion is that Rassmussen's numbers dipped down because people aren't in love with the GM takeover.

What do you suggest then, leave GM to fail and cause another economic crisis?  If he ratings went down because of this, the American people are too stupid to know how the economy works. 

How exactly would it cause an economic crisis? You liquidate it and sell it off piece by piece. Do you seriously think the government can run a car company? When is the last time the government has done anything right?

He appears not to understand how bankruptcy works.  If GM filed for bankruptcy in the traditional Chapter 11 (Instead of the version of Chapter 11 they entered into under the federal government's plan), a bankruptcy judge would simply rewrite the terms of the union contract and shrink the brand lines down based on a standard of reasonableness.  The company would restructure and become solvent again.  GM would not go away.

Instead, we've got the government taking over a car company without doing the things that need to be done to make it competitive.  The government will now subsidize make-work jobs at above market wages for the President's labor union backers so Obama can win Michigan in 2012.

In the process, we have prevented companies like Tesla and Magna (Small electrical car manufacturers) from having a fair chance to expand and take over GM's market share.  GM will have massive govenrment aid in retaining its market share and these smaller more agile companies that haven't run themselves into the ground will never have a chance to compete fairly.

Have you been even following this story at all? There is no DIP financing for GM (or indeed for many companies) out there right now, thanks to the global economic crisis. The kind of Chapter 11 bankruptcy you are talking about is a fantasy. The alternative to nationalization was total liquidation.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2009, 04:55:44 pm »

Given this economy, he was always going to drop below 50... it was inevitable. Although I must say I am surprised at both his honeymoon (the only President I really remember coming into office while I followed politics was George Bush, and he didn't really have much of a honeymoon, so this is the first "honeymoon" for me) and the speed at which it suddenly collapsed starting around mid June, about 5 months into his Presidency.

The question, as I believe someone pointed out several months ago, is when he gets back over 50.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2009, 08:34:37 pm »

Exactly.

After fall 2003.

Up until Sept. 11, 2001, I was mildly indifferent to Bush, but I hoped the economy would go well for reasons not political. After that date, I approved of him and hoped he would succeed. As did most Democrats, which is why the country came together and he had 80, 90 percent approval ratings. After decades of polarizing culture wars, it felt the country had finally come together. Trust in the government was at a high, and people felt we were heading in the right direction. At the helm of this good feeling was our Command in Chief, George W. Bush.

In 2002 and 2003, I saw George W. Bush and the GOP take Sept. 11, and turn it from a national tragedy into a Republican campaign talking point. I saw them use it as a bludgeon to push us into a war in Iraq. Democrats even voted for the war and tried to support Bush. Bush's answer was to portray the Democrats as unpatriotic. Other conservative authors and radio and cable hosts were even worse. The GOP called Democrats "the enemy within" and used hard edged tactics in Congress to govern with an iron fist. Democrats did not turn against Bush until then. From then until the end of his Presidency Bush was the same... the stubborn Presidency of the voters who gave him his own non-existent mandate, while treating the rest of the country as much as a foreign country as possible.

As for the claim that the President does not control the economy, that is only true up to a point. It was the Washington Consensus, the blind faith in the "free market" and the miracles that it could do, and the miracles that financial innovation could do, that inequality and job loss does not matter, that created the crisis, and while both parties and even government regulators were all involved, this belief originated primarily from the Reagan wing of the GOP. It was strengthened under Bush. Under Bush, under these beliefs, people ran up tens of trillions of dollars of fraudulent debts, Bush campaigned under the fraudulent "prosperity" created by these fraudulent debts in 2004, and then in 2008-09 it was dumped on the following President to solve.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2009, 08:07:38 pm »

Jesus, this guy is dropping like a rock. I thought he would drop some, find some support for a few months, then drop some more, but instead he's just dropping like a rock. This summer has been a nightmare. The talk of sleeping giants, peaceful revolution, a grassroots movement like never before, and the depth of passion is terrifying. It certainly wasn't reflected in the polls this spring. How did we go from 60+% approval and adoring crowds to peaceful revolution, screaming and shouting in a couple months? What happened to the middle phase where people begin to express disapproval but aren't going crazy?

Where does it end? What can Obama possibly do? If this goes on for the next 3 years, Obama will be fleeing the country taking a private charter plane to France before the end of his term rather than running for re-election.

Why weren't these people more vocal back in 2007 or 2008, when Obama's health care plan was first proposed?
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2009, 03:44:31 pm »

Obama better get  back to the economy right away after this health care thing gets resolved one way or another.

His biggest problem is that the obsession with health care reform is making him seem out of touch, since 80% of the people are worried about the economy and the deficit, not health care. I do agree we need reform, and I hope he can get it done (with a public option), but then he has to turn his attention back to the economy and in a big way.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2009, 03:57:23 pm »

Obama better get  back to the economy right away after this health care thing gets resolved one way or another.

His biggest problem is that the obsession with health care reform is making him seem out of touch, since 80% of the people are worried about the economy and the deficit, not health care. I do agree we need reform, and I hope he can get it done (with a public option), but then he has to turn his attention back to the economy and in a big way.
The good news is that the economy seems to be recovering quite well at the moment. It could be spun that way pretty easily by Obama.

The economy is in deep sh*t. Whether it recovers or not from here on out is an open question. When you get days like you did today when the financial sector loses 4% completely out of the blue, it just goes to show how unstable things still are.

Just as bad, Obama doesn't seem to have any political instincts on this issue. His economic team are widely seen as cronies. He hasn't clearly explained the bailouts and spending. He hasn't responded to any of the crap out there criticizing his policies at all. He hasn't framed the issue in the right way. He is completely AWOL.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2009, 04:09:48 pm »

Obama better get  back to the economy right away after this health care thing gets resolved one way or another.

His biggest problem is that the obsession with health care reform is making him seem out of touch, since 80% of the people are worried about the economy and the deficit, not health care. I do agree we need reform, and I hope he can get it done (with a public option), but then he has to turn his attention back to the economy and in a big way.
The good news is that the economy seems to be recovering quite well at the moment. It could be spun that way pretty easily by Obama.
The economy is in deep sh*t. Whether it recovers or not from here on out is an open question. When you get days like you did today when the financial sector loses 4% completely out of the blue, it just goes to show how unstable things still are.

Just as bad, Obama doesn't seem to have any political instincts on this issue. His economic team are widely seen as cronies. He hasn't clearly explained the bailouts and spending. He hasn't responded to any of the crap out there criticizing his policies at all. He hasn't framed the issue in the right way. He is completely AWOL.
I disagree, the economy seems to be starting to recover. The Manufacturing Indexes have been up, consumer spending has been up etc. Sure it isn't doing great and there are huge structural problems, like the continuing bank failures and the continuation of the foreclosure mess but the fact that the GDP only decreased by 1% in the second quarter of 2009 shows that the recession should be officially over once the third quarter GDP numbers are released.

Oh I agree but I think he still has the ability to do so. Hopefully failures on health care will teach him to show more leadership.

My concern is that he hasn't shown any 'ability' to do anything for a while now. When has Obama done something original? Taken a stand? Shocked the world? Taken bold, decisive action on a central issue? It seems like he did back in early 2008 but hasn't done so since.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2009, 04:16:03 pm »

It never looked like he was going to in early 2009, frankly. The bailouts are anything but bold and decisive; to the extent they were all the balls came from Hank Paulson. You may disagree with what he did but at least he did take charge there. Obama was just following the leader.

From the beginning his appointments of Rahm Emanuel and Tim Geithner indicated that Obama was going to follow the insider Washington way.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #9 on: December 24, 2009, 02:28:36 pm »

Is there any chance the shading could be made more dramatic-- especially since there are only 2 or 3 shades max? It's hard to see the difference currently.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #10 on: December 24, 2009, 02:45:47 pm »

Is there any chance the shading could be made more dramatic-- especially since there are only 2 or 3 shades max? It's hard to see the difference currently.

I was thinking about that. Maybe something like a different shade for 55% or 60%?

That could work as well-- I was thinking of just more dramatic shades. The problem is the more granular you want to be, the less room you have to make the colors different from one another.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #11 on: December 31, 2009, 12:25:55 pm »
« Edited: December 31, 2009, 12:27:42 pm by Beet »

Are we preferring voters over the total sample? Total sample was approve 40, disapprove 44, likely voters was 39-47.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #12 on: December 31, 2009, 12:28:18 pm »

Are we preferring likely voters over the total sample? Total sample was approve 40, disapprove 44, likely voters was 39-47. It's hard to tell how meaningful 'likely voters' is 10 months out, IMO.

It's registered voters. The total sample was 600 adults, broken down to 566 registered voters.

Yes, I just corrected my post.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2010, 07:41:01 am »

I don't understand how his approval can be so low in the states yet still at around 48/48 (according to pollster) nationally? If it's at 44/52 in Ohio it seems like it should be near 44/52 nationally.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #14 on: July 24, 2010, 02:20:44 am »

I feel so out of sync. When he was running as a candidate / first came into office I supported him for partisan reasons but thought he was an empty suit with a lot of rhetoric who didn't know how to get anything done. This is when most liberals were slobbering all over him.

Now that Obama's signed Lily Ledbetter, the SCHIP expansion, the stimulus package, credit card reform, health care reform (huge), student loan reform, and financial reform, and stabilized the economy, all of which I approve of more than disapprove, my opinion of him has shot up. He's been incredibly effective. But now most liberals are upset he didn't usher in some sort of liberal paradise.

It's pretty lonely being a pragmatic liberal. Most of them liked him when he was a pie in the sky dream, and dislike him now that he's actually accomplished something solid. Perhaps this is just some sort of derangement liberals suffer that causes them to be perpetually unrealistic? I have to say, I would not be a liberal except that conservatives these days are far worse. There's hope for the unrealistic. For the insane there's only treatment.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2010, 11:05:40 am »

Briefly glancing over these...

Unexpectedly High:
Kentucky (40%)
Alaska (40%)
North Dakota (40%)
South Dakota (40%)

Unexpectedly Low:
New York (53%)
Rhode Island (50%)

Hawai'i is just absurd.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #16 on: August 01, 2010, 10:15:48 am »

Hawai'i is just absurd a bunch of Asians rooting for the home team.

Obama's not Asian.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #17 on: August 18, 2010, 09:22:44 pm »

There was not any change between Bush and Obama. People thought that going Crat would bring it. It did not.

While not an appealing option, people may hold their noses in hopes that the GOP has changed its ways.

Disagree. Obama wouldn't do something stupid like squander massive surpluses in good economic times, launch a disastrous war on trumped up evidence, or encourage, protect and promote something as disastrous as one bubble on top of another. Say what you want about Obama, he has a temperate nature, not a reckless one.

It's the Republicans who haven't changed. Handed a guaranteed win cycle where they could have chosen moderates or normal conservatives, they've put themselves at risk to nominate far out tea party candidates. Handed an opportunity by the Senate filibuster to cooperate and help shape the health care bill, they instead chose to gamble on obstruction and lost any say in the final bill. The Republicans gamble with their future just as they gambled (and lost) America's future when they were in charge.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #18 on: August 18, 2010, 09:28:44 pm »

There was not any change between Bush and Obama. People thought that going Crat would bring it. It did not.

While not an appealing option, people may hold their noses in hopes that the GOP has changed its ways.

Disagree. Obama wouldn't do something stupid like squander massive surpluses in good economic times, launch a disastrous war on trumped up evidence, or encourage, protect and promote something as disastrous as one bubble on top of another. Say what you want about Obama, he has a temperate nature, not a reckless one.

It's the Republicans who haven't changed. Handed a guaranteed win cycle where they could have chosen moderates or normal conservatives, they've put themselves at risk to nominate far out tea party candidates. Handed an opportunity by the Senate filibuster to cooperate and help shape the health care bill, they instead chose to gamble on obstruction and lost any say in the final bill. The Republicans gamble with their future just as they gambled (and lost) America's future when they were in charge.

This is another good reason why the Dems will lose. Ignorance.

Huh? I knew how bad this year was going to be more than a year ago. Obama's going to be punished for the consequences of Bush's bust. And the Republicans will take credit when the economy recovers later because debt was paired down during the Obama years. Congrats, you got out of the consequences of your own actions. You got nothing to complain about.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #19 on: September 23, 2010, 11:05:13 pm »

all things considered, 58-41 disapproval in Alabama is really good.

Very true.  I find this quite interesting.  Possible depolarization across the states?

Black people.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #20 on: September 23, 2010, 11:16:53 pm »

Well, his state polls and his national polls certainly aren't matching up.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #21 on: September 05, 2012, 07:34:54 pm »


Actually, if you would have read the numbers, you would have seen a 2-3 point slump for Obama on this poll.

Where does Gallup post the single day results?
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #22 on: September 05, 2012, 07:42:39 pm »


Actually, if you would have read the numbers, you would have seen a 2-3 point slump for Obama on this poll.

Where does Gallup post the single day results?

They don't, so far as I can tell.

This wasn't Romney gaining, however.  It was Obama sinking (and he recovered most of it).

I have no idea what you're even talking about any more.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #23 on: October 04, 2012, 09:44:27 pm »

What about in the lame duck session? Obama got significant bipartisan bills through on the treaty with Russia, repealing DADT, and extending the Bush era tax cuts another two years. And although it's not a comprehensive debt deal, the sequester was a deal with a Congress infused with tea party freshmen. And he's avoided a government shutdown, which Bill Clinton didn't when he last had an opposing Congress. The idea that Obama doesn't engage with Democrats in Congress doesn't square with the fact that he basically let them write the piece of legislation with his name on it, Obamacare. He learned from the Clintons' secretive, top-down approach that froze out Congress and adapted accordingly. He also shifted his position on the mandate once it became clear that his original approach wasn't working. He's shown himself to be flexible and pragmatic.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,878


« Reply #24 on: October 04, 2012, 09:48:47 pm »

Torie, you would never survive in an actual GOP primary in one of those conservative or swing districts. It's not that no Republicans could have been convinced to vote for health care... they were literally dragged kicking and screaming by their own base against the bill. Remember Arlen Specter and Kathleen Sebelius trying to hold a town hall and that woman saying "you have awakened the sleeping giant"? The vitriol was astonishing. No Republican would have voted for it, no matter what they personally thought of the bill, for that reason alone. Political suicide.

The kind of tranquil, moderate, consensus-building governance-- actually, I think, Obama actually prefers that. He would have been a much more popular President in times of prosperity where that kind of governance is possible. The primary emotions of 2009 were rage and fear. And it wasn't so much health care per se but everything-- the collapse of the economy the previous year playing out.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
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