The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[ScottM]

When it actually comes down, to the nitty-gritty, I don't think the Democrats have a prayer in South Carolina. It's not at or near the top of lists of the most conservative States for no reason.

I'm not about to demand that you re-classify the poll as "suspect," even though I do believe this is probably the case, because there's not much else out there on South Carolina right now. I definitely think that if another poll from a major pollster is released, it will cast serious doubt on that one.

[ScottM]

Gallup has been ridiculous with wild swings lately, I really don't understand it.  About 4 days ago, he was at 52/41...

You never know what Gallup will say from day to day. There's way too much variation in it.

[ScottM]

No combined numbers from South Carolina, but we do have some numbers from Rasmussen.

Republican primary voters: 11% approve, 88% disapprove
Democrat primary voters: 80% approve, 19% disapprove

If you assume a 50/50 split, that gives 45.5% approve, 53.5% disapprove. And, I may be wrong, but I would assume that there will probably be more Republican primary voters than Democrats.

Though, it would be nice to see some combined results.

[ScottM]

Minnesota (Rasmussen)

49% Approve
49% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Minnesota was conducted by Rasmussen Reports March 10, 2010. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/minnesota/toplines/toplines_minnesota_governor_march_10_2010

Them aren't good numbers for Obama at all.

You forget that Obama is at 43% at Rasmussen's national poll. Minnesota having 6% higher approvals than the nation is pretty damn good for Obama at this point. MN was only 1% more DEM than the nation on Election Night 2008.

He may be doing better in MN than the rest of the country, but if he goes into election night 2012 with MN so close, he's in trouble. So, I agree - those numbers aren't good for him.

[ScottM]

Rasmussen uses a likely voter model, not a terrible one such as adults.

University polls are the worst. Their data is for the most part, useless.

Don't forget Daily Kos. Theirs are pretty useless, too.

[ScottM]

Hawaii(Rasmussen)

Approve 77%
Disapprove 23%

What the hell happened to Hawaii? It was relatively close in 2004, and now Obama has sky high approval ratings there, and the health care plan also gets a 66\26 approval.

A couple of things, I think. John Kerry wasn't a particularly strong candidate, imho, and Obama is originally from Hawaii.

[ScottM]

The "approval rating plus six" theory is one of the funniest things I've ever seen on the forum, up there with some of Naso's stuff.

I wouldn't discount it, actually.

Carter's approval rating, for example, was 37% prior to 1980's election. He got 41% of the vote, an increase of 4%, and that probably would have been higher had Anderson not split the anti-Reagan vote...

Bush's was 34% before the 1992 election and he ended up with 3% of the vote. Clinton's was 54% before the 1996 one, but I'd imagine Perot skewed things for both somewhat.

Bush II's was 48% before 2004's election, and he ended up with almost 51%, which is an increase of 3%.

Oh, and Ford's last recorded before November 1976 was 45% and he ended up with ~48%, although the 48% figure is from July so make your own judgement on how relevant that is. Again, that a 3% increase.

So, 6% might be a tad much, but an increase of 3-4% seems reasonable. A cursory look through Gallup seemed to show that, interestingly enough, the only President whose vote matched their approval exactly was Reagan in 1984 with 58%.


*shrug*

 I'm not an expert, but it's not far-fetched in principle that vote shares can exceed approval ratings.

I certainly believe that an incumbent has an advantage; just look at the success rate of members of Congress running for re-election. A slight improvement over approval ratings probably shouldn't be surprising, but, yes 6% is no doubt a bit much.

I don't think we should overlook the fact that in some elections you have stronger challengers than other. If the challenger is stronger in a particular year, there's probably a reduced advantage.

One serious mistake that I think is being made, though, is the assumption that you can add the same amount to every State's approval rating. Some States are naturally more friendly than others to a particular party. South Dakota, for example won't be as friendly to Obama as would maybe Vermont.

As for Georgia, BTW, Al Gore performed 5.4 points better nationally than in Georgia, John Kerry performed 6.9 points better nationally, and Barrack Obama performed 6 points better nationally. So unless Obama actually manages to win 56% of the vote give or take a bit, he's not going to win Georgia. And I don't see anyone managing to win 56% of the vote anytime soon in the current political environment.

[ScottM]

I can't believe that pbrower took what should be a news and information thread and turned it into over 300 pages of unintentional comedy goldmine.

I've not even surprised by that and I haven't been here very long.

[ScottM]

I put him on ignore.

Same here and it makes life more enjoyable...

I've decided to do the same myself.

I'd like to make a point about some of the States the liberals here keep trying to convince us Obama will pick up in 2012. One of the things I like about Rasmussen's polling is the information he provides about voters who have strong opinions about politicians. A voter who strongly approves of a candidate is probably almost certain to vote for that candidate, while if the voter strongly disapproves, said candidate can forget that individuals vote.

In Georgia, right now Rasmussen finds 51% of likely voters strongly disapproving of Obama's job performance. In Missouri that number is 46%. In North Dakota it's also 46%. And in South Dakota it's 47%.

All of those numbers are from surveys taken this month, and all of them show that nearly - more than in Georgia's case - half of the voters in those States are almost certain to oppose Obama as of right now. When you consider the fact that some states that Obama won in 2008 give him similar numbers, as of right now, the picture isn't nearly as rosy for Obama as those on the left would have us believe.

Now, before anyone says that a lot can change between now and 2012, I'm very well aware of that. I know a lot of things will change. But, I also know that anyone who claims to have a stranglehold on what's going to happen (as some here seem to believe they do), is delusional. My opinion is that he's in a little bit of trouble, but, again, it's only an opinion, and only time will tell.

[ScottM]

an opinion based on wishful thinking. At this point anyone's election prediction is based on what they want to happen.

Opinion is the key word. It's not something I'm throwing out at random. Yes, I hope I'm right, but that's not the basis for the opinions that I form. It was my opinion that Obama would defeat McCain, I certainly didn't want him to, but the facts as I saw them told me that it would happen. Granted, I didn't expect Obama to win IN or NC, but I think I was probably in the majority there.

So, for the record, while I am very optimistic about 2010 and 2012, I'm not a partisan hack. I call it as I see it, and if I see things turning the other way, I'll be honest about it.

[ScottM]

let's just agree that any 2012 prediction could be way off. This time last year, his approval rating was well above 60%. Even more can happen in two and a half years.

Agreed. That's exactly what I'm saying. Like I said, anyone who claims to have a stranglehold on what's going to happen is delusional. I think we can also agree that there are quite a few delusional posters here - on both sides.