Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 16, 2020, 02:25:14 pm
News: 2020 Mock/Endorsements for Presidential Primaries are now open.

  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 1028082 times)
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« on: July 10, 2009, 11:45:55 am »

I will gladly take Keynesian economics over supply-side theory any day of the week. Comparing the historcial performance of each, as well as the logic behind both theories, it's clear Keynes had it right and supply side is a dismal failure.
As if those were the only two choices.

There is little logic behind either approach, and their reckless positions on spending and inflation are virtually the same.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2009, 11:14:45 pm »

This may be more relevant:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_1120.pdf

(Basically, how would you vote, given the choices?)  :

Obama 49
Huckabee 44

Obama 51
Palin 43

Obama 46
Paul 38

Obama 48
Romney 43

Significantly the sample showed that there was only a 2% difference in the number of voters found who had voted for Obama and for McCain in 2008, indicating that this sample is likely more R-leaning than the average. The potential Republican candidate was shown first in the PDF.

All four potential opponents seem to do less well against Obama than did McCain. I could play little games by trying to adjust the mutual ratings by arbitrary factors... but such would be imprecise. Huckabee and Romney both have serious weaknesses of regional support, and both Palin and Paul have such serious nationwide weaknesses that either would be crushed in LBJ-style landslides.  

Paul would get crushed, but even though I dispise the Gov. I gotta say, I think she'd atleast hit 150-175 electoral votes.
Nothing more than baseless conjecture. Paul does not currently have an iota of profile that Palin does. People know Palin, and dislike Palin. They don't know Paul.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2009, 02:30:45 pm »

Approval and disapproval for the President can be extremely volatile. We are likely to see some more polls that corroborate or contradict this one.  Let's remember -- poor whites and poor blacks have much the same economic problems, and if any group of people has potential as pick-ups for Obama in 2012, it is poor whites. He can't do much good for poor blacks if he doesn't also do good for poor whites, too. If the "scariness" factor goes away and Obama achieves his promises, then the 2012 election should be an Obama landslide.
So how is making things worse for both poor blacks and poor whites going to affect Obama's re-election performance?
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2009, 08:24:06 pm »

Approval and disapproval for the President can be extremely volatile. We are likely to see some more polls that corroborate or contradict this one.  Let's remember -- poor whites and poor blacks have much the same economic problems, and if any group of people has potential as pick-ups for Obama in 2012, it is poor whites. He can't do much good for poor blacks if he doesn't also do good for poor whites, too. If the "scariness" factor goes away and Obama achieves his promises, then the 2012 election should be an Obama landslide.

So how is making things worse for both poor blacks and poor whites going to affect Obama's re-election performance?

How is he making things worse? He promised to start undoing the damage of the previous Administration and he is making good on his promises. Unemployment is high, but such reflects damage done before he became President.   
Oh yes, "undoing the damage of the previous Administration" by expanding the policies of the previous administration.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2009, 08:27:11 pm »

Approval and disapproval for the President can be extremely volatile. We are likely to see some more polls that corroborate or contradict this one.  Let's remember -- poor whites and poor blacks have much the same economic problems, and if any group of people has potential as pick-ups for Obama in 2012, it is poor whites. He can't do much good for poor blacks if he doesn't also do good for poor whites, too. If the "scariness" factor goes away and Obama achieves his promises, then the 2012 election should be an Obama landslide.

So how is making things worse for both poor blacks and poor whites going to affect Obama's re-election performance?

How is he making things worse? He promised to start undoing the damage of the previous Administration and he is making good on his promises. Unemployment is high, but such reflects damage done before he became President.   
Oh yes, "undoing the damage of the previous Administration" by expanding the policies of the previous administration.



Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2009, 10:21:01 pm »

Aside from "let the profiteers profit more", what was the Bush policy on health care?
Expanding the government's role in it, of course, such as his prescription drug entitlement program.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
They began with Obama as shill-in-chief.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
So the boom-bust cycle starts anew. Marvelous.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
LMAO. Obama's whole economic programme is just about trying to keep the bubble inflated until the next election. Not one damn thing has been changed about our economic structure.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2009, 09:21:32 pm »

Just because Obama is running higher the avg approval ratings in SC doesn't mean crap. SC has a high black population, so his approval ratings would be high.

I really don't get what this is supposed to mean. Pollsters generally know how to properly account for these things, certainly Rasmussen and PPP would.

I think his point(or at least mine) is that white Democrats are willing to disapprove of Obama while Black Democrats are not willing to do that. This makes his numbers here higher than in other southern states. Just a theory.

Yea, that is what I was trying to say. I have talk to alot of black folks and most of them just approve of Obama because he is black.

In depth discussions with both blacks you know, I'm sure.

Do you think most white people who disapprove of Obama do so because he's black?

You're kidding yourself if you think that any less than at least 1/4 of blacks don't approve of Obama solely because of his race.

And what would the results have been if it had been Kerry vs Obama?
John Kerry, a white man, won about 90% of the black vote in 2004.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2009, 10:13:33 pm »

Just because Obama is running higher the avg approval ratings in SC doesn't mean crap. SC has a high black population, so his approval ratings would be high.

I really don't get what this is supposed to mean. Pollsters generally know how to properly account for these things, certainly Rasmussen and PPP would.

I think his point(or at least mine) is that white Democrats are willing to disapprove of Obama while Black Democrats are not willing to do that. This makes his numbers here higher than in other southern states. Just a theory.

Yea, that is what I was trying to say. I have talk to alot of black folks and most of them just approve of Obama because he is black.

In depth discussions with both blacks you know, I'm sure.

Do you think most white people who disapprove of Obama do so because he's black?

You're kidding yourself if you think that any less than at least 1/4 of blacks don't approve of Obama solely because of his race.

And what would the results have been if it had been Kerry vs Obama?
John Kerry, a white man, won about 90% of the black vote in 2004.

You answered your own question with my previous post. Very unique.

Uh, so you are arguing that John Kerry would have taken 90% of the black vote against Obama?
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2010, 12:21:17 pm »

Us conservatives need to find a way to knock that guy's numbers down in Ohio. That's very scary.

His numbers in Ohio roughly parallel the national numbers.  pbrower2a is adding six to Obama's numbers in the second map for ... who knows what reason.

It's probably four in that case (Ohio), as it is more than two years away from the election, and I figure that the effect peaks for an incumbent President around 44% approval early on. He won't run unopposed.

In any event I use the model for an incumbent facing a "known" challenger. That may be unduly cautious in this case unless the GOP finds "the New Reagan" who has the ability to win over a big part of the Blue Firewall.

An incumbent Senator or Governor has huge advantages in any effort to win re-election, and those are much the same for a President:

1. Free attention from the media, the attention allowing his campaign to complement the attention with targeted campaign efforts. A challenger must campaign more and buy more advertising access to get a message out, and the message often ends up a muddle.

2. Control of the agenda. An incumbent President really has that and if he is at all competent, he can exploit it without any cynical ploys.

3. The accoutrements of office that impress people who vote for the incumbent under almost any circumstance because the incumbent President is the ultimate expression of power.

4. Being better-known than the challenger.

5. (Except for Gerald Ford), the proven ability to manage a successful campaign for President.

Of course that all fails if the President is generally recognized as incompetent, insensitive, or offensive -- in which case the incumbent President needs much more than a 6% gain in the vote from his approval rating, and probably lacks the time or ability to get it.  

We have yet to see the 2012  election; I predict that the smooth campaign machine of 2008 and the slick campaigner will both be available in the autumn of 2012 as they were in 2008 and aren't now. The President seems to have taken his lumps (on health-care reform) early enough that they won't be an issue of first rank in 2012.

George W. Bush had nationwide approval ratings below 50% throughout most of the 2008 campaign -- and he still won. Figure that Barack Obama could do much the same because he is a slicker campaigner.

George W. Bush didn't win in 2008. (Unless you count his black clone, Barack Obama)
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #9 on: June 17, 2010, 08:31:03 pm »

Approval ratings this far out have little bearing on an election that is almost thirty months away.  One of the most consistent findings, however, is that the President tends to outperform his approval ratings, sometimes by as much as ten points - the addition of five is a conservative estimate.  Right now, Rasmussen - a polling firm whose credibility is seriously in question - has the President's approval at 43%.  By adding five, we get a nearly even approval of 49%.  Against a generic Republican candidate, President Obama would face a tough reelection.  But none of his potential opponents are generic.  They are, rather, disciples of the reactionary movement that wants to puts plutocrats and yes, oil tycoons back into power, who will fight tooth and nail against any financial reform.  So long as the specter of George W. Bush haunts the Republican Party, they have no hope of any electoral success for many years - perhaps decades, should demographic trends increasingly favor the Democratic Party and should President Obama produce any legislative success.  So far, I see an above average President with average approval ratings, weighed down by an economy that was crushed under the weight of George W. Bush and his minions.  It will take a long time to get back to where we used to be.  When our economy is on even footing again, President Obama's approval ratings are sure to spike.  When that happens, you can stick a fork in any Republican candidates - generic or no.

Based on what?  The last time Obama ran for reelection?  Bush was at the mid-50s at reelection, he didn't win in the mid-60s.  But you know, Republicans don't see boosts only Democrats do.  Add 5% for Democrats being polled, subtract 5% for Republicans, right?

Heh, you fell for Van der Blub. Not that his troll views are much different than pbrower's real views...Tongue
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2010, 06:39:00 pm »

You need to add 10% because it is Republican HACK Rasmussen.

What I say with my model is that if the approval rating for President Obama is 41% in the spring of 2012, he would most likely end up with about a 47-53 loss in the state in November.

Nobody but you takes your 'model' seriously, however.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2010, 01:31:10 pm »

Yay, New Hampshire! Cheesy


We may yet be headed for the Christian and Corporate State that Dubya took us toward but only in baby steps.

There's nothing 'Christian' about the corporate oligarchy Bush and Obama faithfully serve.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2010, 11:09:30 pm »


This amused me:
Do you think are more responsible for the current condition of the economy?
30% Democratic policies, 41% Republican policies, 21% both equally

Do you think are more likely to improve the condition of the country?
37% Democratic policies, 40% Republican policies, 9% both equally

So, Republican policies got America in its current state and Republican policies will fix it... sure, that makes sense...

Republocratic policies got us into this mess, and Republocratic policies will make it worse. However Americans keep falling for the same old lies and run back-and-forth between the two wings of the Republocrat party.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #13 on: July 24, 2010, 07:58:09 pm »

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-USArelations-210710.pdf

President Obama has a 64/21 approval rating in the UK. Wink I love my country.

Bush's last recorded UK approval was June 2006 at 16/77.

Wow, the UK is even stupider than the US. That's some feat. Shocked
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2010, 04:55:03 am »

So if I'm looking correctly at the map posted above by JBrase, the president holds a 50% or above approval rating in only 11 states out of 49 polled, and not including D.C.  Regardless of what the future holds for November '12, supporters of Obama have to be troubled by this....

Just speaking as an independent (yes, I voted for McCain in the general, but Hillary was my first choice), I don't see how anyone can honestly think the president is doing a good job, or even a mediocre one.  It's getting down now where a huge remainder of his supporters are doing so based solely on party ID as the majority of voters have been against nearly everything he's tried to accomplish.

He's actually gotten a lot done, even if it is half assed (blame congress, not Obama). He is certainly not a good president because he doesn't lead well. But at the same time he hasn't made any big blunders. If things remain the way they are, he will end up somewhere in the middle of Presidents in terms of job performance.

Now if you think that he shouldn't have done health care reform or financial reform, then that's a different thing. If you wanted these things done, you can't deny that he did it.

Obama has indeed gotten a lot of his fascist agenda pushed through.

Whether you consider that a good thing or not depends on whether you approve of fascism or not.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #15 on: July 25, 2010, 08:06:15 am »

So if I'm looking correctly at the map posted above by JBrase, the president holds a 50% or above approval rating in only 11 states out of 49 polled, and not including D.C.  Regardless of what the future holds for November '12, supporters of Obama have to be troubled by this....

Just speaking as an independent (yes, I voted for McCain in the general, but Hillary was my first choice), I don't see how anyone can honestly think the president is doing a good job, or even a mediocre one.  It's getting down now where a huge remainder of his supporters are doing so based solely on party ID as the majority of voters have been against nearly everything he's tried to accomplish.

He's actually gotten a lot done, even if it is half assed (blame congress, not Obama). He is certainly not a good president because he doesn't lead well. But at the same time he hasn't made any big blunders. If things remain the way they are, he will end up somewhere in the middle of Presidents in terms of job performance.

Now if you think that he shouldn't have done health care reform or financial reform, then that's a different thing. If you wanted these things done, you can't deny that he did it.

Obama has indeed gotten a lot of his fascist agenda pushed through.

Whether you consider that a good thing or not depends on whether you approve of fascism or not.

I kinda approve of the health care bill. That means I kinda support fascism, right Libertas?

I think that he supports the idea that a healthy economic system succeeds by bleeding everyone else to support some "right people" whose enrichment and indulgence is understood to be the definitive good irrespective of the hardships imposed upon everyone else and whose mystical virtues (really, crude exercise of economic power) are not to be challenged. 

Is that you describe Obama's fascist "healthcare reform"?
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #16 on: July 25, 2010, 06:38:34 pm »

So if I'm looking correctly at the map posted above by JBrase, the president holds a 50% or above approval rating in only 11 states out of 49 polled, and not including D.C.  Regardless of what the future holds for November '12, supporters of Obama have to be troubled by this....

Just speaking as an independent (yes, I voted for McCain in the general, but Hillary was my first choice), I don't see how anyone can honestly think the president is doing a good job, or even a mediocre one.  It's getting down now where a huge remainder of his supporters are doing so based solely on party ID as the majority of voters have been against nearly everything he's tried to accomplish.

He's actually gotten a lot done, even if it is half assed (blame congress, not Obama). He is certainly not a good president because he doesn't lead well. But at the same time he hasn't made any big blunders. If things remain the way they are, he will end up somewhere in the middle of Presidents in terms of job performance.

Now if you think that he shouldn't have done health care reform or financial reform, then that's a different thing. If you wanted these things done, you can't deny that he did it.

Obama has indeed gotten a lot of his fascist agenda pushed through.

Whether you consider that a good thing or not depends on whether you approve of fascism or not.

I kinda approve of the health care bill. That means I kinda support fascism, right Libertas?

I think that he supports the idea that a healthy economic system succeeds by bleeding everyone else to support some "right people" whose enrichment and indulgence is understood to be the definitive good irrespective of the hardships imposed upon everyone else and whose mystical virtues (really, crude exercise of economic power) are not to be challenged. 

Is that you describe Obama's fascist "healthcare reform"?

President Obama's healthcare reform is anything but fascist. I refer instead to tycoons and executives who act as if everyone else is either livestock or vermin. Such an attitude is fascism in its crudest form.

 It would appear that you understand neither the nature of fascism nor the nature of ObamaCare, which is fascism in action.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #17 on: August 18, 2010, 12:30:09 am »


Isn't a populist the exact opposite of a libertarian?

No, not in the least. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be de-alignment and we are getting more partisan. 

You seriously think there will be a realignment towards Republicans when more people disapprove of their job in the congress than the Democrats? It doesn't mean the Democrats don't lose big in 2010, since they are the incumbents. But what it means is that Republican support will be very shallow and the electorate could abandon them for the slightest of reasons. 

The electorate is changing.  Looking at 1980, the people who won were very different that the people who lost in 1976.  It is more than hating the incumbents; they are starting to hate what the incumbents stand for.

If we're going to go by that, then this leads to anarchy...maybe even fascism....

Those are two very different possible outcomes...unfortunately we're already trending rapidly toward the latter.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #18 on: September 01, 2010, 01:35:52 pm »


So the lies and propaganda are working.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #19 on: September 07, 2010, 06:54:39 pm »

If that would translate into the election, Obama might not break 205 EV's (redistricting is a factor).

Except that can't translate into an election - Obama won't be winning New Mexico while losing Minnesota and Washington, for example.

There's no rule that says that can't happen.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #20 on: September 07, 2010, 11:23:07 pm »

If that would translate into the election, Obama might not break 205 EV's (redistricting is a factor).

Except that can't translate into an election - Obama won't be winning New Mexico while losing Minnesota and Washington, for example.

Exactly. Obama could continue to fail as a President and he can still win re-election. The approval ratings effect the result somewhat, but the result is primarily decided by the campaign and debates. And Obama is, to be honest, the most charismatic President since Reagan. You cannot tell me with a straight face that Newt Gingrich will break 200 EV's in 2012 if he is the nominee.

If that would translate into the election, Obama might not break 205 EV's (redistricting is a factor).

Except that can't translate into an election - Obama won't be winning New Mexico while losing Minnesota and Washington, for example.

There's no rule that says that can't happen.

Actually there is. It's the fact that Washington and Minnesota are exceptionally liberal states and the GOP is exceptionally conservative.



Oh, I forgot the rule that says the electoral map will always remain static. No Democrat will ever win without the Solid South. No Republican will ever win without Vermont.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2010, 07:08:02 pm »


Yep, Obama's finished.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


« Reply #22 on: November 11, 2010, 07:45:48 pm »

why not??
hes in big trouble in NH why not behind in ME??

Because Maine hasn't voted Republican since 1988. This means Obama can't possibly lose Maine in 2012.

Claiming Maine would vote Republican in 2012 is as ridiculous as someone in 2006 claiming that Indiana and North Carolina would vote Democrat in 2008.
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