Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 10, 2018, 06:00:11 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: New features added! Click here for more information. Click here to configure new features.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  Election Archive
| | |-+  All Archived Boards
| | | |-+  2012 Elections
| | | | |-+  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 986480 times)
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« on: September 23, 2011, 10:08:06 am »

Do you support a vaccination program to aid in a reduction of the risk of cervical cancer?

Sure, but it isn't Garasil. Merck aspired to develop a HPV vaccine. They failed. There were so many strains [19 I think] that they couldn't vaccinate against all of them. Instead of admitting failure they brought Gardasil to the FDA for approval.

What they brought to the FDA only vaccinated against four of the strains, only two being carcinogenic. Over time, the vaccine won't reduce the rate of HPV infection, only pick winners and losing among the various strains. The FDA dropped the ball in not demanding that Merck remove the vaccine against the two benign strains. Merck wanted the bulletpoint that Gardisal protects against 70% of the current rate of genital wart infection, even if meant more cervical cancer as a result.

Even better would have been the FDA insisting all carcinogenic strains be included before approval.


Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2011, 09:40:18 am »

Rasmussen

Strong approval 21% [-1]
Strong disapproval 42% [+4]

Overall approval     44%
Overall disapproval 54%
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2011, 11:59:14 pm »

Do you support or oppose requiring girls entering the 6th grade to be vaccinated against the human papilloma virus, also known as HPV?

22% Support (27% D, 17% R, 21% I)
57% Oppose (51% D, 64% R, 56% I)

I am astonished the opposition figure is so high, even among Democrats and Independents.

I think if you changed the question a little you would see the figures flip.

Indeed. The implication of the question is mandatory, no opt-outs. Even I would disapprove.

Well that's a bit more of a reasonable explanation of the figures, then, I guess. I certainly hope that a re-wording would result in an entirely different set of figures.

How about, "Do you support, or oppose, mandating vaccinating girls entering the 6th grade against some, but not all, of the strains of HPV?"
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2011, 12:44:20 pm »

I have been looking at the 18 month/12 month period prior to the election. 

The one with the lowest low number to win reelection was Clinton in 1996; he had 42% approval in January 1996.

The one with the highest low number to lose reelection was Ford, with a low of 39% in December 1975.

Note that GHWB's collapsed in the spring of 1992 and I think he bottomed at 29%.

I've generally thought that if Obama consistently got below 40%, it could be over.

Incumbents due tend to bounce back a lot closer.  Carter's 12 month low prior to the election was 31% and he gained about 9 points.  Reagan was at 43% in May of 1983 and gained about 16 points.

But, prior Presidents took their pain early and timed the peak of attempts to stimulate the economy to coincide with an election year. Obama tried to avoid the pain early, and is mired in a Japanese-style slump as a result.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2011, 12:47:04 am »

I have been looking at the 18 month/12 month period prior to the election. 

The one with the lowest low number to win reelection was Clinton in 1996; he had 42% approval in January 1996.

The one with the highest low number to lose reelection was Ford, with a low of 39% in December 1975.

Note that GHWB's collapsed in the spring of 1992 and I think he bottomed at 29%.

I've generally thought that if Obama consistently got below 40%, it could be over.

Incumbents due tend to bounce back a lot closer.  Carter's 12 month low prior to the election was 31% and he gained about 9 points.  Reagan was at 43% in May of 1983 and gained about 16 points.

But, prior Presidents took their pain early and timed the peak of attempts to stimulate the economy to coincide with an election year. Obama tried to avoid the pain early, and is mired in a Japanese-style slump as a result.

Different scenario. President Obama came in when a full-blown economic meltdown reminiscent in many ways of that that began in September 1929. He addressed it by the book. The meltdown that had begun in September 2007 came to an end in the equivalent of February or March 1931 instead of in the equivalent of late 1933.

The appropriate comparisons are to the 1930s and not to any later times. President Obama would have approval ratings in the teens by now had he taken deflationary measures at the start of his administration... but that would be the least of anyone's problems, especially with even higher unemployment, a far greater number of corporate failures, and huge.reductions in living standards. The get-rich-quick schemes that marked American economic life from about 1981 to 2007 can no longer work.  

Everything you noted is irrelevant. What is relevent is that the electorate treats Presidents like football coaches. If a coach wins, they keep him. If a coach loses, he's gone. Football coaches are judged by their last season, and Presidents are judged by how the economy is doing early in the Presidential year. You can write at length about the totality of the circumstances, but, the reality is the electorate correctly presumes that politicians are lying to them, and merely judges current results.

Taking the pain early might not have been the politically expedient thing for Obama to do, but, it was what he ought to have done. Reagan took the pain early, and, he was able to claim "morning in America." Obama tried zombie juice. He will have to live with "mourning in America."
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2011, 12:59:58 am »

I have been looking at the 18 month/12 month period prior to the election. 

The one with the lowest low number to win reelection was Clinton in 1996; he had 42% approval in January 1996.

The one with the highest low number to lose reelection was Ford, with a low of 39% in December 1975.

Note that GHWB's collapsed in the spring of 1992 and I think he bottomed at 29%.

I've generally thought that if Obama consistently got below 40%, it could be over.

Incumbents due tend to bounce back a lot closer.  Carter's 12 month low prior to the election was 31% and he gained about 9 points.  Reagan was at 43% in May of 1983 and gained about 16 points.

But, prior Presidents took their pain early and timed the peak of attempts to stimulate the economy to coincide with an election year. Obama tried to avoid the pain early, and is mired in a Japanese-style slump as a result.

Those numbers were all in the 18 months prior to the election.  I'm comparing apples to apples.

Certainly, temporally you are correct. It is also true that Reagan's policies of wringing inflation out of the system resulted in pain early, and prosperity later. There is no reason to presume Obama's policies of "stimulus" will follow the same curve between now and early next year.

Quote


It should be noted that this was a major outlier from Gallup; network polls from roughly the same period showed Clinton at 50% and 53% (scroll down), though it declined into the high forties later in the month (second gov't shutdown?).

That 39% for Ford could have been an outllier as well.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2011, 01:04:47 am »


 The get-rich-quick schemes that marked American economic life from about  1963  1981 to 2007 2011 can no longer work.  


I corrected your typos for you Smiley













1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

Umm, the right to walk the streets at night without fear?

Quote
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2011, 01:46:43 pm »

Gallup, Obama:

approval     38%
disapproval 54%

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

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2011, 12:06:36 am »

Just for reference, when did President Reagan's approval ratings start increasing enough to ensure his reelection?

Close to the time the economy starting perking up significantly.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2011, 12:08:15 am »

So, should we start checking to see if Obama's disapproval can stay below 50%? Wink

I'm looking for Rasmussen's strong disapproval ratings reaching the upper 40's.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2011, 10:00:36 am »

Rasmussen

Strong Approval:      22%
Strong Disapproval:  40%

Total Approval:         45%
Total Disapproval:     53%
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2011, 01:23:07 pm »

Rasmussen [11/16/11]:

Strong Approval:     23%
Strong Disapproval: 42%

-19%


Overall approval:

Approve:      47%
Disapprove: 53%
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2011, 12:33:28 pm »

Rasmussen [11/17/11]:

Strong Approval:      20%
Strong Disapproval:  44%


Overall Approval:      44%
Overall Disapproval:  56%

Strong disapproval approaching danger zone again.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 18, 2011, 12:20:26 am »

...or a bad sample.

The day Obama hit +1 in Rasmussen the sample jumped up a net 5% in one day, and three days later it drops 6% as that sample rolls off....

The "strong approve" dropping 5% looks like a bad sample on the low side...

Rasmussen's use of "likely voters" about a year out adds artificial volatility to things because "likely voters" a year out bounce around far more that they do close into an election....

There is no perfect methodology, they all have warts, this is just the set of warts Rasmussen has chosen...

Nobody can predict who the 'likely voters' are. 

Perhaps Muon2 can enlighten you on how statistics work. "Voters" can't be predicted, but "likely voters" can. Sure, some voters that are not "likely voters" will in fact vote in the next election, and voters whom are "likely" to vote may not, but, the underlying statistical models underpinning the filter can be mathematically and empirically sound.

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 19, 2011, 12:31:10 pm »


Nobody can predict who the 'likely voters' are.  

Perhaps Muon2 can enlighten you on how statistics work. "Voters" can't be predicted, but "likely voters" can. Sure, some voters that are not "likely voters" will in fact vote in the next election, and voters whom are "likely" to vote may not, but, the underlying statistical models underpinning the filter can be mathematically and empirically sound.


There is no doubt that a "likely voter" screen is a better way to poll when you get quite close to an actual election, but one year out it's a bit vague as to how useful that screening is.

This far out, I actually like what Marist/McClatchy and Fox (Opinion Dynamics) do which is run a poll of registered voters, and then NOT slam the undecided hard for a reply.

By limiting the pool to RVs you eliminate the folks who are really unlikley to vote, and by not slamming the undecided, you get the opinion of those who are at least marginally engaged in the process enough to have an a actual opinion.

McClatchy says 43/50 => -7, which is pretty much identical to Fox's 42/48 => -6

The Gold Standard poll (HART/McINTURFF for NBC/WSJ) says 44/51 => -7 which I think is pretty close to reality.

Obama is (IMHO) is in that grey area of polling where is is clearly vulnerable, but also not dead in the water. - Obama's polling looks a lot like Bush II in the summer of 2004 (Obama is maybe a few points weaker) - weak, with a very passionate and intense core of opposition, but also a base that is "hanging in there" and likely facing a challenger in the General election that is less than optimal....

Assuming the Obama folks can bury any ethics scandals, and assuming the GOP gets a flawed candidate, Obama can still will.  It's going to be very close.


President Obama is indeed cooked if...

(1) The Republicans find a really-strong, moderate opponent. A RINO could beat him... or a conservative capable of allaying concerns about whether the GOP agenda would be nothing more than All for the Few. 

(2) He has a significant and discrediting scandal that entails personal gain for raiding the public assets. If Dubya could survive Enron, then the President can survive Solyndra, the latter more a bad judgment on a business model than cronyism.

(3) He assumes that he will be re-elected so he doesn't need to campaign.

(4) The US economy goes very bad very fast.

1. The Republicans aren't running any RINO, and with the politicians that they now have they are not making significant inroads onto the "Blue Firewall" except perhaps New Hampshire -- if Mitt Romney can convince the Granite State that he is one of them.  He is up by nearly 10 points -- which is not surprising when he is much of the news in a state rarely known as a source for news.  If anything the President is consolidating a hold in Ohio, a state that the Republicans absolutely dare not lose.  This President saved the auto industry, or at least two of the Big Three.

2. There may be no scandal to cover up. If Dubya could survive Enron, this President can survive Solyndra.

3. This is a question of personality. Will he do any active campaigning? He seems to enjoy it. He built one of the finest campaign apparatuses ever in 2008 and he can get that back in operation very quickly. He has incentives because the Republican hold on the House will be shaky and the Democratic hold on the Senate looks shaky. This President anticipates trouble well and deals with it without delay.

4. Every month that passes without such happening makes such much less likely.

Americans are getting more fussy about politics altogether, which is a good thing. When it comes to voting, Americans end up grading on a curve. If the President's approval rating is 48% but the opponent has a favorability rating around 42%, then guess who wins! Should Americans be getting more fussy about politics? Without question. We recently had a horrible President, and the House of Representatives is achieving nothing.

President Obama could win the electoral vote despite being second in the popular vote.   


Presidential elections are, by and large, a referendum on the economy. Obama is pretty much cooked unless either the economy improves [almost too late for that since perception lags reality,] or he can successfully change the subject [the economy almost always being the main subject.]

Obamanomics has been a disaster. He has created such uncertainty that unemployment is apt to remain high until after he leaves office. Let's hope for the sake of the unemployed that that is in January of 2013.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2011, 06:04:02 pm »


Nobody can predict who the 'likely voters' are.  

Perhaps Muon2 can enlighten you on how statistics work. "Voters" can't be predicted, but "likely voters" can. Sure, some voters that are not "likely voters" will in fact vote in the next election, and voters whom are "likely" to vote may not, but, the underlying statistical models underpinning the filter can be mathematically and empirically sound.


There is no doubt that a "likely voter" screen is a better way to poll when you get quite close to an actual election, but one year out it's a bit vague as to how useful that screening is.

This far out, I actually like what Marist/McClatchy and Fox (Opinion Dynamics) do which is run a poll of registered voters, and then NOT slam the undecided hard for a reply.

By limiting the pool to RVs you eliminate the folks who are really unlikley to vote, and by not slamming the undecided, you get the opinion of those who are at least marginally engaged in the process enough to have an a actual opinion.

McClatchy says 43/50 => -7, which is pretty much identical to Fox's 42/48 => -6

The Gold Standard poll (HART/McINTURFF for NBC/WSJ) says 44/51 => -7 which I think is pretty close to reality.

Obama is (IMHO) is in that grey area of polling where is is clearly vulnerable, but also not dead in the water. - Obama's polling looks a lot like Bush II in the summer of 2004 (Obama is maybe a few points weaker) - weak, with a very passionate and intense core of opposition, but also a base that is "hanging in there" and likely facing a challenger in the General election that is less than optimal....

Assuming the Obama folks can bury any ethics scandals, and assuming the GOP gets a flawed candidate, Obama can still will.  It's going to be very close.


President Obama is indeed cooked if...

(1) The Republicans find a really-strong, moderate opponent. A RINO could beat him... or a conservative capable of allaying concerns about whether the GOP agenda would be nothing more than All for the Few. 

(2) He has a significant and discrediting scandal that entails personal gain for raiding the public assets. If Dubya could survive Enron, then the President can survive Solyndra, the latter more a bad judgment on a business model than cronyism.

(3) He assumes that he will be re-elected so he doesn't need to campaign.

(4) The US economy goes very bad very fast.

1. The Republicans aren't running any RINO, and with the politicians that they now have they are not making significant inroads onto the "Blue Firewall" except perhaps New Hampshire -- if Mitt Romney can convince the Granite State that he is one of them.  He is up by nearly 10 points -- which is not surprising when he is much of the news in a state rarely known as a source for news.  If anything the President is consolidating a hold in Ohio, a state that the Republicans absolutely dare not lose.  This President saved the auto industry, or at least two of the Big Three.

2. There may be no scandal to cover up. If Dubya could survive Enron, this President can survive Solyndra.

3. This is a question of personality. Will he do any active campaigning? He seems to enjoy it. He built one of the finest campaign apparatuses ever in 2008 and he can get that back in operation very quickly. He has incentives because the Republican hold on the House will be shaky and the Democratic hold on the Senate looks shaky. This President anticipates trouble well and deals with it without delay.

4. Every month that passes without such happening makes such much less likely.

Americans are getting more fussy about politics altogether, which is a good thing. When it comes to voting, Americans end up grading on a curve. If the President's approval rating is 48% but the opponent has a favorability rating around 42%, then guess who wins! Should Americans be getting more fussy about politics? Without question. We recently had a horrible President, and the House of Representatives is achieving nothing.

President Obama could win the electoral vote despite being second in the popular vote.   


Presidential elections are, by and large, a referendum on the economy. Obama is pretty much cooked unless either the economy improves [almost too late for that since perception lags reality,] or he can successfully change the subject [the economy almost always being the main subject.]

Obamanomics has been a disaster. He has created such uncertainty that unemployment is apt to remain high until after he leaves office. Let's hope for the sake of the unemployed that that is in January of 2013.

The economic realities of the Dubya era included:

1. A capital-devouring speculative bubble in real estate. This bubble collapsed when housing prices overtook any reasonable possibility of buyers having the capacity to buy houses. When the construction ended, then the jobs related to that boom also ended.

2. The gutting of manufacturing jobs due to corporate choices (with which the Right acquiesced)  to become importers instead of manufacturers. Manufacturing jobs have typically been the most reliable means out of poverty and for staying out of poverty. Rarely are they the first choices for most people -- but there are only so many professional jobs out there.

3. Extreme intensification of economic inequality. The Gini coefficient for the United States, which had been on par with European democracies in the 1970s, is now on par with countries infamous for severe disparities of wealth and poverty. Economic inequality in the US is typical of a fascist dictatorship, a kleptocracy, or an economy with feudal characteristics. In our case it is an executive elite that enriches itself by destroying competition and paring the payroll for its own compensation.

4. Huge military expenditures on wars for the profits of military contractors and the glorification of the political leadership. Those have a tendency to create jobs during a war, but as the expenditures approach an end, the wartime jobs disappear. President Obama has been getting us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, but such implies an end of a gravy train for some giant corporations and huge job losses.

The analogy to the current economy may be to the 1930s.  FDR was able to win re-election in a landslide in 1936 despite high unemployment. At this point, all that anyone can hope for is slow and continuing improvement with major reforms of the system. The Republicans got their second chance to show what they have to offer with their House majority, and they have blown it badly.

   


Have to say that if I were a Democrat I'd rather run against Bush than for Obama. Too bad for Democrats that 2012 will be a referendum on Obama's handling of the economy as much as 2008 was a referendum on the Bush's handling of the economy.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2011, 01:36:05 am »

Rasmussen: 46-52

22-40 SA/D

Quote
Gallup: 43-47
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2011, 01:10:11 pm »

Rasmussen:

23-38 [-15]

47-51
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2011, 03:10:03 pm »

Rasmussen:

23-38 [-15]

47-51

The strongly disapprove vs. strongly approve business is irrelevant, unless one of the two somehow exceeds 50%. 

I would say that the mid-forties is the danger area, while 50% is fatal.

Quote
Everyone gets one vote.  It doesn't matter how passionate that vote is.  It might matter for fund raising, but Obama is presently romping there anyway. 
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: November 29, 2011, 10:19:10 pm »

Hmmm... He's back down to -7 to -9 territory now.  I wonder what caused the late October-early November bump when it looked like he was moving back to 50/50 approvals?  It doesn't seem obvious at all.

The news out of Europe, and the stock market, have shown some correlation with Obama approval numbers.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2011, 08:24:16 pm »

Hmmm... He's back down to -7 to -9 territory now.  I wonder what caused the late October-early November bump when it looked like he was moving back to 50/50 approvals?  It doesn't seem obvious at all.

The news out of Europe, and the stock market, have shown some correlation with Obama approval numbers.

We'll see if this is the case after today's massive rally over the next couple of days.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: December 01, 2011, 01:25:33 pm »

Hmmm... He's back down to -7 to -9 territory now.  I wonder what caused the late October-early November bump when it looked like he was moving back to 50/50 approvals?  It doesn't seem obvious at all.

The news out of Europe, and the stock market, have shown some correlation with Obama approval numbers.

We'll see if this is the case after today's massive rally over the next couple of days.

I think Nov unemployment comes out Friday.  If it is positive, relatively speaking, it will be difficult to distinguish the two.  Jobless claims below 400,000 for a month normally means at least low six figure job growth.

That's initial claims per week.

It was above 400,000 today.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: December 01, 2011, 07:29:13 pm »

Hmmm... He's back down to -7 to -9 territory now.  I wonder what caused the late October-early November bump when it looked like he was moving back to 50/50 approvals?  It doesn't seem obvious at all.

The news out of Europe, and the stock market, have shown some correlation with Obama approval numbers.

We'll see if this is the case after today's massive rally over the next couple of days.

I think Nov unemployment comes out Friday.  If it is positive, relatively speaking, it will be difficult to distinguish the two.  Jobless claims below 400,000 for a month normally means at least low six figure job growth.

That's initial claims per week.

It was above 400,000 today.

Right, but 400,000 is roughly the "people sense improvement" level for that variable.  It did rise again, but it has averaged below 400,000 over several weeks.  The last time that happened was in Jan and Feb when we had roughly 200K job growth for the month.

I thought the over/under number was about 375,000.

400,000 points to 9.1% unemployment.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: December 21, 2011, 10:50:17 am »

This should scare Republicans:

Note that this is among likely voters in the Republican caucuses in Iowa:


Quote
Q25 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion
of the Republican establishment?

Favorable........................................................ 34%
Unfavorable .................................................... 34%
Not sure .......................................................... 31%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_1218925.pdf

It shouldn't scare them because we all should know by now that those Tea Party crazies hate any form of establishment (but, ironically, remain loyal Republican voters).

Teaparty folk support the Constitution with vigor, for instance. Your statement makes no sense. Their objection to the Republican "establishment" is not that it exists, but, rather, that its values are antithetical to Teaparty values.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,413


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: December 28, 2011, 01:51:51 pm »



Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45%, -2.

Disapprove 54%, +2.

"Strongly Approve" is at 23%, -3.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 41%, +3.


Probably holiday related bad numbers.

Preferentially sampling people who don't celebrate Christmas?

Sorta. People with strong family structures tend to be more Republican, and, as a result, travel away from home more often during the Christmas season.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed. That has begun to change with the election Donald Trump.
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines