Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 20, 2019, 11:49:05 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1006869 times)
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


« on: April 27, 2009, 12:00:03 pm »

A lot of these polls are defining in independents differently. Rasmussen asks people to self-identify, CBS may well be weighting by registration. I would tend to to believe that given that CBS tends to suck as a pollster.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2009, 09:10:28 am »

Still heading up:

Rasmussen 57(+1) 43(0)
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2009, 08:45:26 pm »

If you have the following:

Election day approval rating of each state
Election day vote percentage of each state
Current approval rating of each state

Then you can come up with:

Educated guess of the current vote percentage

If you want better, you would have to find a way to compare the 2008 McCain/ Palin ticket to any potential 2012 Republican tickets.

The latter I think is impossible. McCain/Palin was a unique combination of two very different candidates who may very well have attracted with one part of the ticket the part that was attracted by the other. How many people came out for McCain due to Palin who would not have come out for McCain/Romney? How many voted for McCain because of his reputation in spite of disliking Palin?
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2009, 05:10:26 pm »

I bet a lot of these "Democrats" they survey don't turn out in elections, so their opinion means very little. They're probably overestimating his support. This seems to be the trend, Democrats' numbers are overestimated because many "Democrats" don't care very much and thus don't vote.

Amusingly before both the 2006 and 2008 elections there was enormous amounts of discussion about over weighting Democrats blah blah blah, and the end finding was that at least in most state polls there was absolutely nothing to it. If anything, in order to get an accurate picture of results you had to overweight Democrats and Independents substantially to make up for the extreme conservatism of the rump of the GOP, whose supporters are a lot more cohesive since most Republicans who are likely to vote against the party or support Obama have switched identifications.

 This is a issue with polls that use identification rather than registration as their baseline. It also seemed mostly to apply to state polls more than national ones. A lot of this is because most national polls were by CBS/ABC/NBC/NYT whose polls suck generally.

This should not be an issue at all with Rassmussen or Surveyusa which use a likely voter screen, and there is enormous evidence(go back and look at polls in 2003 or 1997 for senate races) that the further out from an election, the greater a likely voter screen favors Republicans.



Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2009, 10:17:14 am »

If anything, in order to get an accurate picture of results you had to overweight Democrats and Independents substantially to make up for the extreme conservatism of the rump of the GOP, whose supporters are a lot more cohesive since most Republicans who are likely to vote against the party or support Obama have switched identifications.

 This is a issue with polls that use identification rather than registration as their baseline. It also seemed mostly to apply to state polls more than national ones. A lot of this is because most national polls were by CBS/ABC/NBC/NYT whose polls suck generally.


I don't really understand why this would show up in polls but not at the polls.  I'm very tired, but could you explain in greater depth?

Or just, like, say "read it tomorrow you jerk."  I can do that, too, although I think I'll still probably be confused.


Basically we all agree that the number of Republicans has been going down over the last few years and adjust polls accordingly. But at the same time the percentage of Republicans is going down, those voters leaving them aren't dissapearing, but they are actively changing the makeup of independents. As a result numbers that might well have been

D Candidate R Candidate

D(35%)  93%              7%
I(31%)   55%             43%
R(34%)  85%              13%

Will very likely change into

D(37%) 91%               9%
I(37%)  52%               44%
R(26%) 93%                 7%

This would be portrayed as voters souring on Democrats even though few voters have actually changed their preference at all. All they have done is changed their identification. I think that there has been an approach taken that all Independents are actually ideologically similar, when in fact, independents are ideologically closest to the minority party whose members have moved en masse into it. All that has really changed is that Republicans are identifying as independents. Now a few may have actually changed their ideology, but most have probably kept at least some of their views.

Basically this is my counter to Rasmussen's claims that independents are becoming more conservative on "x issue". I don't think there is actual evidence of them becoming more anti-tax. Instead Anti-tax  people switched registration recently.

Sorry on not posting earlier. In a European time zone.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2009, 08:14:25 am »


And let them be unemployed. The whole reason the US manufacturing sector has been collapsing for the last ten years is because of the lack of government healthcare which makes it impossible to compete with what is a massive government subsidy anywhere else in the world.

Granted Obama deserves his approval rating for badly mismanaging the healthcare debate and not casting it in economic terms where there is no sane opposition.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2009, 08:07:01 pm »

The thing about 18-29 year olds, and other groups as well, is that their is no opponent to compare Obama too. When there is a Republican nominee, social issues will drive younger voters to cast ballots for the Democrats as they did for Kerry.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2009, 08:27:18 pm »

What is this Arizona is very likely to flip farce? I know the favorite son effect blah blah blah occurred in 08 but does anyone remember AZ has voted GOP in every election (excluding 96) since 1952, both Senators are Republicans (Kyl being one of the MOST conservative in the Senate and McCain is moving sharply to the right as well) and the GOP controls the Governor's Mansion and BOTH houses of the State Legislature and have controlled all those marbles for some time. Arizona is bright red despite Clinton being able to take it once in a 3 way race.

Jan Brewer was NOT elected to be Governor of Arizona.  She was elected to be Sec of State and took over the Governor's mansion when Democrat Janet Naplitano (who was first elected in the strong GOP year of 2002) resigned to take the Sec of  Homeland Security position within the Obama admin.

I'm not suggesting Arizona will flip, though no more home state advantage + continued GOP problems with the growing Hispanic vote could make it much more competitive than it was.

And within 10 years the GOP will be relegated to 5 white men and the huge mass of minorities and "age wave" voters will ensure that a Liberal Democrat at last wins the final GOP House seat in Utah wiping out the GOP forever. Yawn. And I didn't seriously think I'd have to reitirate the fact that Brewer hasn't been elected Governor yet but is the pack of nobodies the Dems are putting up against her very likely to defeat her or whoever the GOP nominates?

Any name picked randomly from the phonebook would probably beat Brewer. Luckily for the GOP, that is true of the primary as well as the general. She is unlikely to be the Republican nominee.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2010, 06:08:30 am »

For a healthy reminder of why we shouldn't be overthinking polls: Massachusetts, the GOP-leaning swing state of 2012.

Probably exagerated a bit, and note the 25/60 ratings Palin pulls in that same poll for comparison. Romney's numbers, at 49/43 are not that hot either.

That said, something is happening, and a lot of legislators on Beacon Hill are quite scared at the moment.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2010, 01:56:50 pm »

If MA votes for a Rep in 2012, Obama is done!

LOL, if Obama loses MA i'll eat my hat.

Obama was never liked in MA. He lost the primary badly, and was holding a single-digit lead until Palin. It would depend on who the Republicans nominate,  but don't expect MA to be the most pro-Obama state in 2012. Not by a long-shot. The Democrats are a weird split between the urban liberal who love him and the sort of ethnic traditional Democrats who he is  having so much trouble with in West Virginia and Arkansas.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2010, 02:50:16 pm »

What amuses me about all of the Ohio was stolen people is that Bush still would have had a 3 million popular vote plurality even had he lost Ohio. So if we are talking about approval ratings and presidential vote, the original point still stands.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2010, 04:47:05 pm »

FOX News: 43-50

Congressional Ballot: 47R-36D

Sample: 41R, 37D, 16I

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/072910_ObamaElections.pdf

Interesting:

Obama loses among Independents in this poll by 36-56, but he was leading in the Ipsos poll by double-digits.

Has there ever been an election US history when self-described R's outnumbered D's. I thought was the worst, and that was parity.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2010, 12:00:07 pm »



Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 48%, +1.

Disapprove 51%, -1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 27%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 41%, u.

Same as on 8/31/10.  There was a decline in Obama's numbers in mid September, but he appears to have made up some ground.

Drifting towards where Clinton was in 1994. Clinton was around 44% in early September and drifted back towards 48% or so. Probably saved Feinstein and Lautenberg.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


« Reply #13 on: October 28, 2010, 08:15:00 am »

Just for comparison:

George W. Bush's favorable rating in the final CBS/NY Times poll taken right before the 2004 election was 48/42

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/12/politics/main3362530.shtml

So Obama's polling behind Bush in favorability right now, two years before his prospective re-election.  Two years after Bush posted a 48/42 favorable/unfavorable, he was down to 34/52.

The problem for Obama is that Obama is not polling well enough personally after only two years in office.  He hasn't even experienced the inevitable decline since most voters say they don't blame him primarily for the economic decline.  They have decided to dislike him personally even without blaming him.

Bush was quite a bit below that in the fall of 2003, and earlier in 2004. Job approval ratings always converge with voting intentions in Presidential campaigns. Hence why Carter saw his go up in 1980 despite losing. Of course he was starting from a very low base.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2011, 04:00:52 pm »

Gallup Polled Obama versus "the Republican candidate" and had them tied 46-46, with Obama having basically the same voting base as he did in 2008.  The significant differences they found in their poll were that:

1) Obama did markedly worse with younger voters, winning them only 51-44 compared to 63-33 in their last pre-2008 election poll.

2) Obama won less of the Non-White Vote than in 2008 (they didn't post the non-white 2008 numbers, but in their last pre-2008 poll Obama won Blacks 92%-3% and Hispanics 74%-20%, with the latter term having a lot of variability week-to-week.  Both of these are much higher than the 63% of "non-whites" he's winning in this poll).

It's worth noting though that their last pre-2008 poll had Obama winning 52%-41% overall, so those number might have been slight overestimates of Obama's support at the time, and that both of the above totals represent lower support for him than the 2010 CNN Exit Poll Numbers for the National house races.

Here's the latest Gallup Poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146138/Nameless-Republican-Ties-Obama-2012-Election-Preferences.aspx

Here's the 2008 one:

http://www.gallup.com/tag/Key%2bIndicators.aspx

The thing is, both of those groups are vastly more likely to support generic Republican than any of the Republicans actually likely to win the nomination.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2012, 05:48:24 pm »


I know that when I think Hitler, I think mediocre but stable approval ratings.

Hitler was actually popular in the 1930's.

I tend to disagree to that statement. The time he "took" office was accompanied by large riots and people fleeing the country, despite the polling probably not being at todays standards.

Anyways, I don't think this has anything to do with the actual topic.

Polls that came out from the Goebbels headquarters should be subject to a ton of salt.

But I think it was true that the public opinion during the first few years of Hitler was very favorable towards him, because of the reduction of unemployment.

People were happy the "political crisis" was settled, though some might well have preferred a different settlement. No one though wanted to go back to the risk of civil war or a communist takeover.
Logged
Pages: [1] 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