Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 12, 2019, 08:34:53 am
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Endorsements Close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1014862 times)
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« on: April 21, 2009, 02:00:58 pm »

How dare those Colorado voters not like the Messiah! Junk poll!!

If they dont like him then they shouldnt have voted for him in November.  They knew exactly what they were getting and if they didnt like it then they could have voted for McCain and help put him in the White House.  The attitude these days of voting for somebody and then deciding they dont like them is just shameful.  They knew what they were getting. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2009, 10:24:08 pm »

Yes, because of one approval rating poll, Obama will lose Colorado.

Stop overanalyzing the approval ratings. You're not helping yourselves become decent political analysts; you're just looking like fools.

Roll Eyes

That one Colorado poll was also highly questionable.  Do you think only 23% of Hispanics really approve of Obama there?
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2009, 03:38:52 pm »

After getting his best results in a while, Rasmussen today shows Obama with his worst approvals so far:

54% Approve
46% Disapprove

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 34% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of 0. That’s the highest level of strong disapproval and the lowest overall rating yet recorded."

Image Link

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

There is no way that there are absolutely zero undecideds.  Majorly flawed poll. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2009, 03:57:06 pm »

After getting his best results in a while, Rasmussen today shows Obama with his worst approvals so far:

54% Approve
46% Disapprove

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 34% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of 0. That’s the highest level of strong disapproval and the lowest overall rating yet recorded."

Image Link

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

There is no way that there are absolutely zero undecideds.  Majorly flawed poll. 

He was one of the most accurate pollsters in the last several elections. This is also not among adults but likely voters. Majorly flawed post.

He was almost never right with Bush's approval ratings.  All throughout 2006 when Bush's ratings were around 30% in most polls, Rasmussen consistantly had him in the mid 40's. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2009, 04:43:19 pm »

After getting his best results in a while, Rasmussen today shows Obama with his worst approvals so far:

54% Approve
46% Disapprove

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 34% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of 0. That’s the highest level of strong disapproval and the lowest overall rating yet recorded."

Image Link

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

There is no way that there are absolutely zero undecideds.  Majorly flawed poll. 

He was one of the most accurate pollsters in the last several elections. This is also not among adults but likely voters. Majorly flawed post.

He was almost never right with Bush's approval ratings.  All throughout 2006 when Bush's ratings were around 30% in most polls, Rasmussen consistantly had him in the mid 40's. 

Way to not read what I typed...

My point is that he is good with election polling, but not good with approval and issue polling. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2009, 05:45:23 pm »

Sorry, but you can't be "right" polling approval ratings. There's no such thing. It's something that cannot be verified.

For some reason his approval and issue polling usually comes out around five to ten points more favorable to Republicans than other polling. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2009, 06:20:57 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. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2009, 10:45:24 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?

It would have had a similar affect that letting Lehman fail had on the economy. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2009, 11:39:42 am »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Yes, but what does that have to do about 2012?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Wrong, the economic woes are now on Obama, after the first 100 days it became Obama's woes. Also, the economy was find until 2007 when Democrats took over.

.

That is actually not true at all.  The economy was clearly weakening in 2006.  The housing bubble popped in the summer and GDP growth slowed to almost nothing toward the end of the year. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2009, 12:03:40 am »

I love that Obama will win VA by 10 points or more. Dude, your "system" sucks.
Uh, he won by 6.3 points only several months ago. So you're incredulous about Obama improving by at least 3.7 points nationally, let alone in one of the most aggressively Democratic shifting states?

I don't think it's his analysis that sucks here.

Hmm, his approval rating there is 52%, lower than his 2008 vote total. So yeah, I have a hard time believing it.

I agree, outliers happen.

And Rasmussen's final VA poll before the election wasn't the best either ...

Didnt he show Obama up just 49%-48% in the final VA poll?
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2009, 06:27:25 pm »


There hasn't really been an economic recovery yet, but I'd guess that there's a VERY strong chance that the economy will rebound in the next few years before 2012, enough to boost Obama's approval ratings no matter what they are (could be 20% or 80%).

Who the hell cares about 2012?  Democrats need to be worried about 2010 right now. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #11 on: June 21, 2009, 06:36:23 pm »


There hasn't really been an economic recovery yet, but I'd guess that there's a VERY strong chance that the economy will rebound in the next few years before 2012, enough to boost Obama's approval ratings no matter what they are (could be 20% or 80%).

Who the hell cares about 2012?  Democrats need to be worried about 2010 right now. 

Yeah, I actually find it doubtful we'll make gains. But, look at '94, Republican landslide and Dole did terrible in '96. The midterms are a good guide, not always though. If we do well in 2010, it'll be because of Republican failings, not our success.

Clinton beat Dole because he basically became a Republican, abandoning healthcare reform, and signing Welfare Reform and deregulation.  A Republican landslide in 2010 would likely wipe Democrats out of Congress for at least another 12 years. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #12 on: June 21, 2009, 06:56:46 pm »


There hasn't really been an economic recovery yet, but I'd guess that there's a VERY strong chance that the economy will rebound in the next few years before 2012, enough to boost Obama's approval ratings no matter what they are (could be 20% or 80%).

Who the hell cares about 2012?  Democrats need to be worried about 2010 right now. 

Yeah, I actually find it doubtful we'll make gains. But, look at '94, Republican landslide and Dole did terrible in '96. The midterms are a good guide, not always though. If we do well in 2010, it'll be because of Republican failings, not our success.

Clinton beat Dole because he basically became a Republican, abandoning healthcare reform, and signing Welfare Reform and deregulation.  A Republican landslide in 2010 would likely wipe Democrats out of Congress for at least another 12 years. 

Then everybody would talk about how the Democratic party is dead, and how they've lost touch with America, blah, blah, blah.

Anyway, Republicans will make gains in 2010, but they will be hard pressed to take back either house of congress.

Well, luckily for the Democrats, the Senate is impossible this cycle, but the House could get awfully close. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2009, 06:16:35 pm »

I dont think we will see unemployment fall significantly until around 2014-2015.  The problem is that you need a year of growth of around 5%-6% to significantly drop the unemployment rate and I dont see growth going higher than maybe 1%-2% in the next four years.  That wont be enough to reduce the unemployment rate. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #14 on: July 23, 2009, 10:38:57 pm »

Just for the record, Obama is at his lowest approval and highest disapproval in Gallup polling:

Approve 55%
Disapprove 39%

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

It's all over!!  It's all over!!

President Obama will be a one termer!!!

BYE BYE BARACK!  BYE BYE BARACK!!

As of January 1983, Ronald Reagan looked like he was going to be one termer too given that he was riding in at 35% approval according to Gallup

Excuses excuses.  I smell desperation!!

IT'S ALL OVER!!!!!  Like an OVERBID on the Price is Right with Bob Barker.  I can even hear Barker sadly saying 'You're Over!' with the loser horns playing in the background.

No desparation here. I've always said that Obama will be held to a high standard, such is the ideological nature of America. As for Reagan's approvals, as of January 1983, I'm merely stating a fact

Reagan had an economy that grew explosively in 1983 and brought down the unemployment rate significantly.  This economy will not grow enough to bring down unemployment much over the next several years. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #15 on: July 26, 2009, 02:35:39 am »

Zogby

48% Approve
49% Disapprove

47% Excellent/Good
53% Fair/Poor

“What is troubling for the President is not only his slide with voters but that they are re-polarized. He is strong with Democrats but only has 6% approval from Republicans and 40% from Independents. Support from young voters is high (59%) but he is down several points from the margin they gave him in November 2008. His support wanes as voters get older.”

The Zogby Interactive survey of 4,470 likely voters nationwide was conducted July 21-24, 2009 and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.5 percentage points.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1726

Dont even bother with Zogby.  They are an online poll and not at all accurate.
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #16 on: July 26, 2009, 02:39:12 am »

pbrower is in fantasyland.  A lot of Dems are.

Comparing Obama in 2012 to Reagan in 1984?

Reagan's "morning in America" campaign worked because the economy was growing.  If he had said it was morning in America and unemploymnet had been at 12%, people would have thought he had a screw loose.  Reagan won because he ran on his record.

We are likely to have a slow recovery. The easy gains from real estate speculation and from predatory or destructive activities (subprime lending, export of jobs) are no longer available. Obama will be unable to impose some economic magic that cuts unemployment levels to the point that inflation becomes a genuine threat, as he does not have command of the economy.

Any recovery in America is going to depend upon import substitution, formation of small businesses, and the likely recovery of industries that have recently had hard times (like the auto industry). Much of this will happen without him doing anything, and he will derive political gain from it.    

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the nastiest economic downturn since the Great Depression. But note well that much of the Great Depression was a recovery from the worst effects of the catastrophic crash.  Even a depression offers opportunities -- so long as people look to the long term and make commitments to underperforming activities (by recent standards) more likely to enrich progeny than to enrich founders. High unemployment ensures that plenty of competent people are able to take on new jobs in start-up activities. Raw materials, equipment, and real estate are available cheaply. Lenders have capital to lend. The 1930s may have been the best time ever for starting a business; consider that something so "normal" in life as the supermarket came into existence then.    

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which may include staying out of the way of necessary change, and keeping the corruption  and cronyism that Dubya fell for out of the federal government. Government activity must be effective and economical; it must create wealth (think of highway projects, conservation, retrofitting buildings for savings of energy, and the like). Even defense spending can be part of the mix; a nutty dictator in North Korea who makes Leonid Brezhnev look like a paragon of decency, caution, and reason may force us into the SDI program that Reagan wanted.

So far I consider it blasphemous to compare Obama to FDR -- but Obama knows his US history. Note well that FDR won a huge landslide victory in 1936 even though the economy had yet recovered the 1929 level of prosperity -- but enough people seemed to believe that America was headed in the right direction.

That will be enough in 2012 to win, if not in a spectacular landslide.    



Things are completely different than they were in the 1930's.  In the 1930's, there wasnt a 24 hour newmedia that picked at every little thing FDR did.  There also wasnt the need for instant gratification that people seem to have today.  People increasingly expect things to turn around fast and if they dont, those in power are in a lot of trouble no matter who they preceeded. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2009, 08:40:33 pm »

It's RV.

Look folks, as I've said before, the economy will drive Obama's ratings to a large extent. 

But if Obama is going to attempt to drive legislation through the way he's done, you're going to see something similar to Bush's trendline in the absence of 9/11 and Iraq.  Of course, some other events can occur (similar to 9/11) to affect these numbers (and probably will).  And if the economy were to turn into mid-80s or late-90s style, then you'll definitely see the trendline broken.  I don't see the latter, of course, at all, but just as a hypo...

,

I dont think the economy will look the way it did in mid 80's or late 90's anytime soon.  Probably not until around 2016 or later. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2009, 01:02:10 am »

I would again like to point out that Americans have historically always answered that they're concerned about the deficit, even when other answers contradict that one. As I said before, even under FDR, the public said they wanted to balance the budget, despite the fact that they largely supported FDR's big spending New Deal programs.

Yeah let's spend more to get out of debt....  that makes perfect sense.

If we tried to cut spending right now it would crash the economy again.  The only reason why we are not in another Great Depression IS government spending. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #19 on: August 04, 2009, 06:53:15 pm »

It looks like Obama fell to earth about a month before Carter did in 1977.  http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Carter

Carter fell from 66% to 54% around Labor Day 1977 after the Bert Lance scandal broke. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2009, 04:18:51 pm »

I am pretty sure that Obama carrying Virginia in 2012 is very unlikely.  It was probably a one time thing. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2009, 06:14:18 pm »

I'd expect a bounce for Obama after Friday's economic numbers. CNBC was having an orgasm proclaiming "America is back!" and "the new bull market!" all because we only lost 200,000 jobs. The media is now pushing this narrative.
CNBC was pretty much saying the economy was fine tell Lehman bros went under so this shouldnt come as a surprise.

It's not a surprise, but I was a bit surprised how jubilant they were. Kudlow had some people on claiming we should see 3-3.5% growth during the rest of the year and into 2010, and that it is time to put all of your money into stocks.

Generally, the deeper the recession, the more powerful the recovery.  The 1991 and 2001 recessions had such weak and slow recoveries because those recessions were not very deep.  If you look at the 1980-1982 recession(which was comparable to the 2007-2009 recession), it had a pretty quick and strong recovery. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2009, 03:25:26 pm »

Trends for comparison:

Carter Aug. 1977: 63/20

Reagan Aug. 1981: 60/29

Bush I Aug. 1989: 69/19

Clinton Aug. 1993: 44/48

Bush II Aug. 2001: 56/35


By early September, Carter had fallen to where Obama currently is. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #23 on: August 17, 2009, 03:43:45 pm »

Democrats should have never wanted to win this election.  This has just been a disaster.  Democrats need to start running away from and against Obama like they did to Carter. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,843


« Reply #24 on: August 17, 2009, 09:29:06 pm »

Democrats should have never wanted to win this election.  This has just been a disaster.  Democrats need to start running away from and against Obama like they did to Carter. 

Don't blame the cycle. The economy isn't helping, but the real problem is a leadership vacuum.

Obama has no leadership experience and it shows. Bush may have consistently led us down the wrong path, but at least he could lead.



Bush was able to lead?  Where was he when the economy began falling off a cliff in 2007?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 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