Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 15, 2019, 09:05:37 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions 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 1006254 times)
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« on: January 22, 2009, 09:47:14 pm »

What was the question they were asking? Perhaps "Do you approve of Obama swearing the oath?" I don't think that's about the only thing on which to judge him one way or the other at the moment...
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2009, 08:26:03 pm »

Obama is down to 51% in Rassy and down to  56% in the RCP average.

Don't worry, Dems, I'm sure that Obama is as invincible as you've all told us for months.

I'm not worried considering Saint Reagan was sitting at 35% in Gallup as of January 1983

Saint Reagan's won because the economy recovered in the second half of '83.  So Obama should be fine if the next election doesn't happen until 2017.
I don't see how the economy would take that long to recover when almost every group of economists has predicted the recovery to start in 2010...

If those economists keep talking about how the recovery will begin next year, and then it doesn't... it makes Obama look worse than if they had said nothing at all. They're building up expectations and if those expectations aren't met, it will be the perception that it's the government's fault. Mind you, if they were wandering around, saying how things are going to get worse and the economy won't pick up for another six years or something - and then it does pick up next year... well, people will be hailing the great economic manager in the White House.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2009, 08:04:45 pm »

But the Dems seem to have selective outrage. It's okay to mock Bush, but not okay to mock Obama.

Mockery of George W. Bush began early when many questioned whether he had been elected fair-and-square. That faded on 9/11. It began anew as reports emerged that the basis of the invasion of Iraq was specious, and intensified after the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina.

Anyone who fouls up as badly as Dubya did, and not only for holding the "wrong" ideology, deserves mockery. But even the great ones (except perhaps Washington) get mockery. Lincoln did, and FDR did.  

Question: is the mockery valid?
 

By this standard, it would be okay to mock Obama for botching his swearing in. I can only imagine what it would have been like if Bush had done that.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2009, 07:13:11 pm »

Yeah, NE-02 should probably be orange.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2009, 07:17:46 pm »
« Edited: September 16, 2009, 07:20:27 pm by Smid »

I don't know whats with all the letters, so I'm changing it back to numbers.
I will not be picking and choosing which polls to put on.



When making the map, tick off the box that shows Congressional Districts - since most of the polls for either Nebraska or Maine are going to be state-wide anyway... And if we're having Green >30% for >50% ties, we should have Yellow >30% for <50% ties.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2009, 06:37:59 pm »

Doesn't matter if it's a rogue poll, the next one will correct it. If a new poll doesn't come along, eventually the poll will drop off, like the one for Tennessee.

The simple thing to do would be to include all polls, even ones that don't look correct, or average the last few polls released if you're worried about a single rogue poll corrupting the sample. While we're at it, let's drop the congressional districts, since most polls are of the entire state, not just a single congressional district. People are smart enough to make their own minds up about how the congressional districts lie in relation to the state as a whole.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2009, 12:16:35 am »

The US should probably just do away with General Elections once and for all and just hold Democrat primaries instead.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2009, 12:26:46 am »

The link to the Georgia poll doesn't work. Unless the numbers quoted can be backed up, I suspect them to be fake and should be disregarded.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2009, 09:55:06 pm »

The debate about the use of Approval vs Favourability polls is a valid one.

I can see that, as pbrower has stated, Favourability needs to be used in some instances due to the underpolling of some states (for example Indiana). It also, however, tends to be higher than Approval polls.

Rather than attempting some arbitrary estimated calculation to adjust for this, perhaps the best thing to do would be to not include Favourability polls except where the last poll for a state was more than, say, a month or two months old? Where there is an Approval poll that was more recent than that, don't adjust that state's figures. If the last poll was a Favourability poll, use the more recent Favourability poll instead. Perhaps that would be overly complex, but maybe a note at the bottom of the map listing states showing Favourability rather than Approvals may simplify things?
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2009, 12:22:03 am »

pbrower2a's previous rationale for excluding "likely voter" polls:

The New Jersey poll relates to a gubernatorial race in 2010.

Even when you erroneously thought the NJ gubernatorial race was in 2010, you wanted to exclude the poll.


I was mistaken then. So does it matter now? Just watch for the next New Jersey poll.

Who doesn't make errors? I don't watch gubernatorial races closely.

It's not that you were mistaken, it's that you're being inconsistent. When you thought the New Jersey poll was a poll of 2010 Likely Voters, you excluded it on the basis of 2010 Likely Voters not being 2012 Voters. Now you have another poll of 2010 Likely Voters and you choose to included it because 2010 Likely Voters closely resemble 2012 Likely Voters.

The rationale behind adopting 2010 Likely Voter polls or rejecting 2010 Likely Voter polls for the purpose of this map is unimportant - so long as there is consistency. Either reject all 2010 Likely Voter polls or accept all 2010 Likely Voter polls - but don't accept or reject them based on whether or not you like the result.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2009, 09:16:12 pm »

Why is Virginia blue on the map?

Didn't PPP have a poll that was around 51% disapproval for Obama recently?

I believe that PPP is a relatively reputable polling agency...

That was back in November. Another pollster, SUSA, had a disapproval rating in the high fifties. That was the last brown shade for November/

The latest poll rules if nothing less than two weeks old is available. The latest one is from a couple days ago and it was 50-50. It's aquamarine as a tie at 50%, and not blue.

A tie at below 50% is better for Obama than a tie at 50% because it implies fewer people disapprove of him and more people are uncertain and could swing back in support of him. A 30% Green shade should not be used for a 50% tie.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2010, 04:06:00 am »

Bush I's approvals may have been inflated by the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2010, 04:44:13 am »

America is starting to realize why we elected Republicans- they didn't screw things up.

Ahem...



Of course, if those charts were the other way around, Democrats would be complaining that the rich shareholders were the only ones benefiting from the Bush Administration...
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #13 on: February 25, 2010, 08:19:48 pm »

You might want to consider putting an "S" on that South Carolina poll, Pbrower...

Show me that it is a partisan poll and I will do better-- I will remove it.

I thought about that -- but that's about where Obama has been in South Carolina since November with no poll of any kind since December. I thought that that was something like 47%.

It's 48%-40%, which has a HUGE undecided component -- 12%. The only thing strange about the poll is the huge undecided component.  But that large undecided/no response component doesn't hide the fact that the Republicans are doing badly in South Carolina. Think about it: 28% of the people are undecided on whether they like their incumbent Senator. In what is supposed to be a good year for Republicans, an incumbent Republican Senator in a supposedly-strong Republican state should have an approval above 42%.

Rasmussen could give a harder poll at any time, and that would be enough to cut down this possible outlier.  But I also thought of the 41% F&M rating in Pennsylvania, which isn't too far out of line the other way of other polls, either. If I put an "S" on South Carolina I would also have to do so on Pennsylvania, which I think few want me to do. Just remember -- aqua isn't far from sand.  49-46 is aqua, 48-48 is white, and 47-50 is sand. 48-40  is aqua, and you would have to believe that 9 of the 12 who didn't give an opinion really think that Obama is sub-par to contradict "aqua".
 

Even so, I look at the Jesse Helms-like stances of James DeMint, the adultery-across -70-degrees-of-latitude  scandal involving the Governor, a callow racist statement by the Lieutenant Governor (the one making an analogy between stray animals and poor people, basically "The more we feed, the more they breed", a KKK slogan, by the way), and the "You lie!" outburst by Rep. Joe Wilson, and I can see South Carolina as a disaster for the GOP in 2010. It's only one state, but it is one. 



Well, do you remember back in the day when you initially decided on the "s" moniker for spurious or suspect polls?  It was when SurveyUSA initially had Virginia approval at 38/58, when the previous poll just a few weeks before had it around 47/52 or so.  Therefore, such a big and questionable change would render a poll "suspect", as I believe you yourself said.

Now, let's extrapolate that to the South Carolina poll number this time around.  The last poll out of SC had around a 50% disapproval for the President, correct?  Perhaps you can check that out.  In my opinion, a change of ~10% for no reason would qualify as "spurious", wouldn't you agree? 

Additionally, the spurious one up in Washington was too far from the one in Oregon, which was the justification for it being suspicious. This one seems pretty out-of-whack with all the states in the region.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2010, 08:22:43 pm »

Texas Survey of 500 Likely Voters

Conducted March 3, 2010

By Rasmussen Reports

1* How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?

27% Strongly approve

9% Somewhat approve

8% Somewhat disapprove

55% Strongly disapprove

1% Not sure

When will your next map be up?
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #15 on: March 07, 2010, 05:08:39 am »

I look at how Barack Obama won Nevada in 2008: he practically colonized the state with Democratic activists from California who knew that California was a sure thing. Many of those political activists changed legal residence to Nevada so that they could vote there. Such will happen again should Nevada be in doubt.

I look at how he won Colorado and New Mexico: with lots of campaign volunteers from Texas who knew that nothing that they could do in Texas could win Texas. Some probably changed their states of legal residence to Colorado or New Mexico so that they could vote where they were active.

Those California and Texas Democrats have mostly gone home. If necessary, they will be back. Some of the Texas activists will likely end up in Missouri in 2012, and some of the California activists will be in Arizona in 2012.

 

This is as morally reprehensible as gerrymandering.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #16 on: March 08, 2010, 02:41:24 am »

I have no problems with people campaigning in a state different to the one in which they reside, but to change one's legal place of residence solely for the purposes of voting is a disgusting subversion of democracy.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #17 on: March 25, 2010, 02:55:29 am »


Good to see!
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2010, 08:12:27 pm »

I find a 50% approval of Obama in Florida hard to believe , just as I found recent 44% approvals in places like Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin hard to believe. But he is doing better in the South (except in Arkansas and Kentucky). Take good looks at Alabama, North Carolina, and Texas.

Could Florida's result be related to the number of retirees? Healthcare issues tend to resound with older voters, although perhaps many of them have insurance, so maybe not. Perhaps Alabama, North Carolina, Texas, etc have more people likely to benefit from public healthcare, whereas some of the northern states may have a greater proportion of people who already have insurance and don't want to see their tax dollars going towards that.

Just thinking... this sort of economic policy focus could be the realignment we speculate about every now and then. Recent elections have been focused on social issues - hence the South being strongly Republican and the North being strongly Democrat, but obviously between the GFC and Healthcare debates, perhaps people are focusing more on the economic debate. That would make the Democrats more competitive in the South and places like Kansas and other areas with more voters with below-average incomes, while making Republicans more competitive in places like New England. I'm probably talking rubbish, but just thought I'd put it out there for discussion.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2010, 04:22:23 am »

I find a 50% approval of Obama in Florida hard to believe , just as I found recent 44% approvals in places like Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin hard to believe. But he is doing better in the South (except in Arkansas and Kentucky). Take good looks at Alabama, North Carolina, and Texas.

Could Florida's result be related to the number of retirees? Healthcare issues tend to resound with older voters, although perhaps many of them have insurance, so maybe not. Perhaps Alabama, North Carolina, Texas, etc have more people likely to benefit from public healthcare, whereas some of the northern states may have a greater proportion of people who already have insurance and don't want to see their tax dollars going towards that.

Just thinking... this sort of economic policy focus could be the realignment we speculate about every now and then. Recent elections have been focused on social issues - hence the South being strongly Republican and the North being strongly Democrat, but obviously between the GFC and Healthcare debates, perhaps people are focusing more on the economic debate. That would make the Democrats more competitive in the South and places like Kansas and other areas with more voters with below-average incomes, while making Republicans more competitive in places like New England. I'm probably talking rubbish, but just thought I'd put it out there for discussion.

The donut hole is one of the first things that seniors see being (partially) phased away through the 2010 legislation.

As it is, seniors pay the first $295 of prescription costs, 25% of that between $295 and $2700, and the entire amount between $2750 and $6254, before the government picks up 95% of the amount over $6155. People with chronic conditions (diabetes is a prime example) can have their money eaten.

It's worth noting that although Florida is near the national average in income, the rest of the South (including Texas)... is below the national average. Poverty itself is a health hazard in its own right. Poor people are likely to get better access to health care.

What is good for poor blacks is also good for poor whites. Obama did badly with poor Southern whites in 2008, most likely on "cultural" issues -- contrast Clinton and Carter.     



Yes - exactly what I was trying to say/ask.

Do you all think if Obama flips Texas to Democrat (the largest surprise we could think of probably), should the Republican Party really reimagine themselves?

Can't see it happening any time soon... even if the South starts trending back towards the Democrats (if for the reasons I floated earlier), it's likely that the Republicans will start to do better in other parts of the country. There is no "grand coalition" that encompasses the entire country and leads to a perpetual majority for either party.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #20 on: May 26, 2010, 06:22:17 pm »

Any reason you took one CA poll over the other? The other one intuitively looks more accurate to me.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #21 on: June 20, 2010, 08:39:49 pm »

AR, TX, & NY


30%-39%-Dark Dark Red
40%-44%- Dark Red
45-49%- Red
Under 50% approval but approval higher than disapproval- Yellow
50%-54%- Light Green
55%-59%- Green
60%+- Dark Green

Maine needs to be a "6" on your map I think ...
I keep on trying t type in 6 but every time it just shows up as 4

Try using a map from before Nebraska and Maine split their EVs... I think you have to go back to the 1960s, but for maps from back there, you can change the number for Nebraska and Maine.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2010, 01:55:13 am »

Obama Gallup Approval rating June 2010:

46% Approve

46% Disapprove

Trends for comparison:

Carter: 43/42 (June 1978)

Reagan: 45/46 (June 1982)

Bush I: 68/18 (June 1990)

Clinton: 46/46 (June 1994)

Bush II: 73/20 (June 2002)


Interesting that Bush is the only reelected one with positive approval at this point and that the other two with positive approval didn't get reelected.

Reagan, Clinton, and Obama took big risks with the Presidency. Bush I had accomplished about everything that he wanted to accomplish as President within a year. I'm not sure that he really wanted the Soviet Union to collapse.

Dubya may have won Ohio "with a little help from his friends" in 2004, so we can't be completely sure that he won honestly.

Seriously...why is it so hard to accept that George W. Bush was elected then re-elected as President of the United States in the 2000s?

Dubya was elected -- maybe not honestly. As the 2000 and perhaps the 2004 Presidential elections prove, the States elect the President and the American people don't. Nothing guarantees the fairness of the States' processes of deciding who is elected. Conceivably the Governor could conduct a coin toss if something went fishy.

In 2004 people living in precincts likely to vote for Kerry often found huge delays in the vote due to machine shortages and GOP-sponsored challenges to the vote; those in precincts likely to vote for Dubya typically could vote quickly and efficiently. 

The Ohio election for President in 2004 was official -- but also fishy.

And in 2000, voters in western Florida were told by the media that their polling stations had closed, when in fact they were still open because of the difference in time zones. This led to fewer voters showing up to vote in the final hour than is normally the case. As that area is typically very strongly conservative/Republican, Gore benefited from this and the lower turnout could have changed the election result. If I were to use your logic, this must therefore be a gigantic conspiracy by the media, proving a left-wing bias.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #23 on: July 12, 2010, 09:02:33 pm »

Indiana -- marginally contestable, a bad sign for the GOP.

Pay no attention to the map covered in a sharply disapproving mustard yellow. It is merely there to add delicious flavor to Obama's hot dog of a victory romp.

41% Strongly or Somewhat Approve, 45% Strongly Disapprove. At this stage more people are saying "Heck No" than either "Definitely Yes" or "I'll Probably Vote for Him."
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #24 on: July 15, 2010, 09:42:38 pm »

Does anyone want to predict what happens to polls after Wall Street Reform and the first stop of the gusher in the Gulf?

We shall see.

The change in the polls will probably be about the same as the change in the polls following the passage of Health Reform legislation.
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