A Gallup poll released this week shows that only 10 states give Obama a positive job approval rating. If translated into electoral college votes, Obama would lose 323 to 215.
Ohio showed one of the biggest declines in approval. This seems to explain why the anti-Obamacare November ballot issue won by the largest margin of any of the other statewide issues. Here are the facts from the poll--enjoy reading them knowing that there is hope that the U.S. will survive the Obama debacle.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152372/Obama-Approval-Above-States-2011.aspx#1
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/ga...
Well to be fair the poll is nothing more than the Job Approval numbers. That doesn't mean he will lose a state where he is underwater on JA. The incumbant always gets a 2-3 point bump so states where he's sitting at 47-49 JA he will probably still win.
The problem comes from two other factors. States like Florida, Ohio, and PA his JA sits below 45% (Ohio it's 42%). That means the GOP candidate would not just have to be bad but HORRIBLE for him to win without any major change in his JA numbers. Romney polls within 2 points of the President consistently. When you have JA numbers that bad and the challenger is so close the undecideds tend to break to the challenger and key supporters stay home. That is why those who predicted an Obama landslide are now backing away from it.
If Romney is the nominee the President needs MAJOR job creation and/or a Bin Laden death event to boost his approval to win.
Likewise Romney cannot have an implosion like McCain experienced when he put his campaign on hold during the financial crisis.
I believe the election will be close like '00 and '04 but with GOP enthusiasm/Dem unenthusiasm putting Romney over the top in the three swings states I mentioned thus either giving Romney the win or a 270-270 tie (in which case the House of Reps give Romney the win).
Of course this is as it currently stands and I'm the first to note that many things could change from not till November.
MikeyA
How many battle gound states will Rep nom and Obama be fighting for? Also if Romney only focuses on the middle class vote with statements about the poor it sure can't help him. There are a lot of Obama supporters that are not sure about Obama this time around and Romney being in my mind a reflection of Obama those votes could go back to Obama...
"Don't Tread On Me"...
"THE LIBERTIES OF A PEOPLE NEVER WERE,NOR EVER WILL BE SECURE, WHEN THE TRANSACTIONS OF OUR GOVERNMENT ARE FORCED UPON US"...
Patrick Henry and Tread...
Right now as it stands the states that are battleground are OH, FL, PA, VA, CO, NC, IA, WI, MI, NV ( I ranked them in order from most competitive to least).
Now some of these could change by the nominee. NH looks to be firmly GOP this time but Romney on the ballot moves it to solid GOP, for MI he moves it to more competitive.
Realistically, there are some that I don't think will be competitive but they say they will because of the issues, i.e. Wisconsin. Additionally, I think NC will flip back to red and not be competitive and CO will get bluer. I think NV could go red if Romney is the nominee because Mormons are to Mormon candidates as Black people are to Dems. MN could be added to the list if Pawlenty is the VP.
270towin.com is a good site to see the scenarios that could play out.
MikeyA
I look at myself and if polled, I don't approve of Obama's job. Many liberals feel the same. He hasn’t been nearly as progressive as we had hoped. He’s what would have passed as a Republican only a few decades ago.
That doesn’t mean however that I’m going to turn around and vote for Romney and what every piece of tea party meat he chooses as his running mate.
As for enthusiasm, I know several lifelong Republicans who will now vote Democrat after SB5, something after much waffling Mitt decided to support. If you look at turn out in the Republican primaries, they hardly represent a group with fire in their belly.
You are correct. Disapproval does not equal loss of vote.
Generally if someone disapproves of an incumbant three scenarios take place:
1. They hold their nose and vote for them anyway not feeling comfortable but still believing enough in the incumbant's vision.
2. They vote for the challenger wanting a change of direction.
3. They "vote with their feet" meaning they choose not to vote for that position.
For those who disapprove of the President the percentages who fall into these three categories will determine if he wins the Presidency. As I have noted incumbants get a 2-3 point bump. Right now the President's national JA number is averaged at 46% meaning with the bump he's at 49%, which is why I see a nailbiter. A lot can and will happen in the coming months.
MikeyA
Excellent point, Sensor! I also disapprove of his job performance--he didn't push for a bigger stimulus, he didn't even consider supporting a single-payer healthcare system, he continues many of the Bush policies, etc....
But this certainly doesn't point to a Romney presidency.
Pink Slip
Mike, I would be careful in citing the GOP enthusiasm factor. So far, all but one primary has had lower voter turnout than in 2008. It may have held true for the off-year election, but it's not looking as strong now.
Pink Slip
Actually, you have that wrong. All of the states--with the exception of Florida--that have had a primary have experienced an increase in the number of voters. Apparently, in 2008, Florida had a tax levy on the ballot that brought out an unprecedented number of voters.
What should worry Obama is that far fewer Democrats are coming out to vote as opposed to when Clinton was seeking re-election.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/02/02/2979646/voter-turnout-number...
"Actually, you have that wrong. All of the states--with the exception of Florida--that have had a primary have experienced an increase in the number of voters."
GOP voter turnout was DOWN in Iowa, NH, and Florida. That is, registered Republicans. You are confusing this with overall turnout.
Pink Slip
enthusiasm doesn't always translate to primaries.
I am undecided if I will vote in the GOP primary. I have long said I think all the candidates would do well in the general. What I care about is the issues they are dealing with.
The polls that measure enthusiasm have found GOP enthusiasm to be as much as +15 to even depending upon the state, pollster, sample size, and screen (all voters, registered voters, likely voters). Most have it on par with or above the 2010 election.
So yes I am concluding based upon the above paragraph that the GOP is enthusiastic for 2012. Granted it does come with the qualifier as it stands right now, just like my prediction.
MikeyA
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_electi...
That would prove what I said. President at 47% + 2-3% bump = 50%. Assuming no credible third party candidate that would leave Romney with the rest. 100% - 50%= 50% and thus a nailbiter decided by the EV's.
MikeyA
Essentially, polls showing the general election are irrelevant. That is because someone can loose the general election (the number of overall votes) and still win the presidency (it has happened in the recent past). The presidency is decided by electoral college votes. Populated states like New York and California, which typically go strongly Democrat, can add significant numbers of votes to the overall vote, but they have a finite number of electoral votes.
RealClear is considered to have a more 'conservative' bent than most pollsters.
Really? By whom?
First off, they are not a pollster. They are a site that takes the polls put out by reputable pollsters and news organizations and they average them.
Secondly, how is the above "conservative"? In fact, take a look at what you linked. They took polls from CBS/NYTimes, PPP, Pew, ABC/WashPost, Democracy Corps, Reuters/Ipsos - not a one of those is at all conservative and a strong case can be made that their polling methodologies favor Democrats. The only pollster listed that could be considered conservative is Rasmussen. And Ras has been favoring the Dems more than Gallup (considered very fair by both sides) because the LV screen is strongly skewed by the 2008 electorate that even Dems feel they won't hit that type of turnout in '12.
Thirdly, compare RealClear's chart with Pollster.com's it's much more favorable to the President and Pollster.com is the same Pollster.com owned by Huffington Post.
So please quit trying to discredit a fair organization by attacking/labeling them without facts to back it up.
MikeyA
Wiki quotes from RealClear founders:
'In an interview with the conservative magazine Human Events, McIntyre described the philosophy behind the Web site as based on "freedom" and "common-sense values." Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions." He further stated, "we have a frustration all conservatives have", which is "the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Clear_Politics
You want to parse over words, fine; it doesn't have a conservative 'bent'...it just makes sure the 'conservative' viewpoint is included, which, according to most conservatives themselves, is not something 'mainstream media' outlets do in news stories or polling data.
What they do mainly is link to news stories. They do provide their own content but the bulk is generated from elsewhere and from reputable agencies.
I did notice you stopped at that line. Let me continue the paragraph for you. "When Nate Silver of rival site FiveThirtyEight.com claimed RealClearPolitics.com was rigging its averages to favor Senator John McCain and other Republicans, McIntyre denied having a conservative bent, stating, "We’re running a business, We have no interest in screwing around with that for partisan purposes.” Silver later backed away from the claim and said the two sites had a friendly rivalry and grudging respect for each other." Nate Silver, of course being a left-wing political commenter and he too uses the polls to try to read predictions from them.
So who has the agenda? It appears you left-wingers trash fair organizations only when the conclusions don't go your way.
But not all of you are without a fair mind. Because oh yeah the last paragraph of the wiki article quotes two other liberals. "New York Times columnist David Brooks said, "Some people wake up every morning with a raw egg and exercise. I wake up every morning with RealClearPolitics.com. It's the perfect one-stop shopping for the smartest commentary on politics and life."
Howard Fineman, Newsweek chief political correspondent, states that, "RealClearPolitics.com is a site that makes a credible effort to do the impossible: to provide a comprehensive, real-time (and not just Beltway- based) overview of the entire American political conversation.""
And again you did nothing the negate the FACTS I showed of their poll averages which support my argument that it is fair.
So there's you and RCP competitor Nate Silver versus Me, the Chief political correspondent for Newsweek and a prominent NY Times commentator. Using your own link.
MikeyA
Maybe you're having a bad week. You're not usually this full of histrionics.
Kindly point out where, in any of my comments on this thread, I trashed RealClear.
By using the word 'conservative' in describing aspects of the site? When the founders used that word I believe four times in a single quote to an interviewer as to what that site's objective was?
Have a beer, exhale, and pace yourself. It's a long slog until November and you'll have plenty of time and possible reasons to begin breaking the plates and dishware.
It'll be tough to beat him no matter who the republican nominee is. Blacks will vote for him because they view him as Black. Anyone on welfare, food stamps, etc, will vote for him because you don't bite the hand that feeds you. Stupid people will vote for him because ....they are stupid. Lifelong democrats will vote for him because he's a democrat.
"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni
I think Obama's biggest challenge will be to motivate the number of people who voted for him in 2008 to get out and vote in 2012. ACORN (version 2) will have to pay more per vote this year because people never did get their portion of the "Obama stash."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZ-Etb0k0Q
You're spot on Galt. Technically one could argue the President is a victim of his own success.
The biggest demographic that the President will have a hard time getting to show up at the polls is the below 26 crowd, IMO.
I noted this on this site when the President won. The young voters rarely vote. Yet they came out in droves for the President. Now we're 4 years later, they've graduated college and the job market was not there for them. Will they still come out for the President in the numbers as last time even if they do still support him? I am betting on no.
MikeyA