• Welcome To LPSG
    Welcome to LPSG.com. If you are here because you are looking for the most amazing open-minded fun-spirited sexy adult community then you have found the right place. We also happen to have some of the sexiest members you'll ever meet. Signup below and come join us.


Latest Gallup Poll - 39% approval for Obama

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Reaction score
11,610
Points
208
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
It's that high in part because Congress's approval rating is even lower. Times are bad and people aren't happy--but at least some of them are making distinctions about who to blame.
 

B_enzia35

Banned
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Posts
866
Reaction score
10
Points
53
Location
Texas
Almost everyone is to blame in DC. Yes, almost everyone, R/D, doesn't matter.
 

B_VinylBoy

Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,365
Reaction score
36
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Is anyone shocked that it's the usual haters who make these threads?
Seriously, what is the point? We know the OP hates Obama. Is the fact that he's now down to 39% on a Gallup poll supposed to validate your own beliefs & prejudices, therefore making what you believe more factual with others who disagree? How foolish. Because let's be clear... whether or not someone "approves" of another's actions differs from person to person, and you just need to come to grips with the fact that some people are going to be supportive of others you personally don't like.

He can be at 29% right now... but unless someone provides another real alternative he's still getting the votes of many, MANY people. You may want to focus on finding someone who can beat Obama and actually has a real plan for the economy & job creation, instead of constantly talking about how much you dislike him. Because we all know hate is in this season, and there's enough of it to go around on LPSG.
 
Last edited:

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
932
Reaction score
12
Points
103
Is anyone shocked that it's the usual haters who make these threads?
Seriously, what is the point? We know the OP hates Obama. Is the fact that he's now down to 39% on a Gallup poll supposed to validate your own beliefs & prejudices, therefore making what you believe more factual with others who disagree? How foolish. Because let's be clear... whether or not someone "approves" of another's actions differs from person to person, and you just need to come to grips with the fact that some people are going to be supportive of others you personally don't like.

He can be at 29% right now... but unless someone provides another real alternative he's still getting the votes of many, MANY people. You may want to focus on finding someone who can beat Obama, instead of constantly talking about how much you dislike him. Because we all know hate is in this season, and there's enough of it to go around on LPSG.

It's pretty near impossible to win re-election with an approval rating under 40%. It's a significant number for reasons besides hating on Obama, and frankly, when you get sub-40%, "finding someone who can beat Obama" matters less and less if you can make it a referendum on the incumbent.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Reaction score
11,610
Points
208
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
It's pretty near impossible to win re-election with an approval rating under 40%. It's a significant number for reasons besides hating on Obama, and frankly, when you get sub-40%, "finding someone who can beat Obama" matters less and less if you can make it a referendum on the incumbent.

But still, referendums don't win elections; candidates do. Unless the Republicans can find a viable one, their "referendum" will wallow in a disembodied limbo.
 

B_VinylBoy

Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,365
Reaction score
36
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
It's pretty near impossible to win re-election with an approval rating under 40%.

But the election isn't for another 15 months and Obama doesn't even have a clear cut opponent at this point. It is far too early for anyone to say with any certainty whether or not Obama will win in 2012 based on an approval rating this early in the game. It's just sheer speculation, based on people's obvious political biases and nothing more.

It's a significant number for reasons besides hating on Obama, and frankly, when you get sub-40%, "finding someone who can beat Obama" matters less and less if you can make it a referendum on the incumbent.

If that's the case, then why does Harry Reid still have a job? At one point, his approval rating in Nevada was as low as 28% yet he won re-election decisively over Sharron Angle. Regardless of what any poll says, you still need to find someone credible in order to defeat a person in power. Referendums can reflect a trend in people's voting habits and beliefs, but it doesn't dictate anything beyond that.

Klingsor said:
But still, referendums don't win elections; candidates do. Unless the Republicans can find a viable one, their "referendum" will wallow in a disembodied limbo.

What he said. I would hope that staunch Republicans don't make the same mistake twice and just assume that everyone is going to see things their way because they're unhappy with the way things are because it can always get worse. The last thing anyone needs to do right now is vote out of anger and frustration.
 
Last edited:

snakembl14

Lurker
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Posts
46
Reaction score
0
Points
91
Location
GB, WI
Is anyone shocked that it's the usual haters who make these threads?
Seriously, what is the point? We know the OP hates Obama. Is the fact that he's now down to 39% on a Gallup poll supposed to validate your own beliefs & prejudices, therefore making what you believe more factual with others who disagree? How foolish. Because let's be clear... whether or not someone "approves" of another's actions differs from person to person, and you just need to come to grips with the fact that some people are going to be supportive of others you personally don't like.
</p>
Right...and you don't make any threads about people you dislike in politics?
 

B_VinylBoy

Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,365
Reaction score
36
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
</p>
Right...and you don't make any threads about people you dislike in politics?

Not like this.
I've made threads about people I have problems with in an attempt to have a real discussion about their stances on issues and policy (such as Grover Norquist). However, where is the attempt to bring a real discussion about Obama in this thread? Simply put... there is none. He has a low approval rating. So what? That's supposed to be enough for undecided people or Obama supporters to see things in a different way? This makes you feel better for not voting for him? Good for you. But besides the usual partisan gloating, what is there left to talk about?

Pay attention to context once in a while. And give up on your desperate attempts of false equivalency. I think different, and what I do is different despite all the parallels you try to draw. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

sargon20

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
22,157
Reaction score
31,233
Points
343
Location
Atlantis
Who cares what benighted Americans 'approve' of. We know half of the US population is incapable of acquiring, processing and understanding information. Over 80% approved of the disasterous discission to topple Saddam. And a majority approved of Bush's equally disasterous tax cuts. This is still the same electorate that marched over the cliff with him. Both mutli-trillion dollar mistakes. And now they want Obama to wave his majic socialist wand and make it all disappear.
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Reaction score
16
Points
53
I'm inclined to agree... a poll on his approval ratings this far away from election has little if not no bearing on the likeliness of his re-election. It's as fair an indicator as, say, the Straw Poll is for Ron Paul's chances of being nominated by the Republicans as their candidate (Not in a billion, million, zillion years).


Am I surprised the number is so low? I am not. After the mess with the debt ceiling and the fact that Republicans got "98% of what they wanted" and the White House just had to be satisfied the apocalypse was averted and that they managed to block 2% of what the Republicans rammed through... I think a lot of his base is fairly annoyed at the moment, and maybe unfairly so.

Combine that with the people who hate the President based entirely on race (but try masking it behind things they're obviously too stupid to have an informed opinion on) and you get 39%.

Between now and election that number will no doubt increase as (hopefully) the White House figures out that "compromise" isn't the watchword their base is looking hear and they adjust their strategies so as to be able to further some of what they were put in power to enact.





JSZ
 

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
932
Reaction score
12
Points
103
But the election isn't for another 15 months and Obama doesn't even have a clear cut opponent at this point. It is far too early for anyone to say with any certainty whether or not Obama will win in 2012 based on an approval rating this early in the game. It's just sheer speculation, based on people's obvious political biases and nothing more.



If that's the case, then why does Harry Reid still have a job? At one point, his approval rating in Nevada was as low as 28% yet he won re-election decisively over Sharron Angle. Regardless of what any poll says, you still need to find someone credible in order to defeat a person in power. Referendums can reflect a trend in people's voting habits and beliefs, but it doesn't dictate anything beyond that.

You're reading far too much into a comment about the correlation between approval ratings and reelection :). Of course, there are many months left, and even within an election, leads can shift around frequently. However, approval rating still has major significance. Candidates do not go into elections with 39% approval ratings and win often. Reid had a 44% approval rating on Election Day, regardless of whether he had 28% in earlier days, and Angle was an atypically unpopular candidate. In fact, only 37% of voters in the race didn't express strong ambivalence in the exit poll -- a number that seems unimaginable in a Presidential election.

I'm not saying anything besides this: Approval rating matters, and 39% is anemic even if the opposition is weak.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Reaction score
11,610
Points
208
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Of course, there are many months left, and even within an election, leads can shift around frequently. However, approval rating still has major significance. Candidates do not go into elections with 39% approval ratings and win often . . .

I'm not saying anything besides this: Approval rating matters, and 39% is anemic even if the opposition is weak.

Since you agree that there is a great deal of time left, perhaps you'll agree that it's a little premature to talk about Obama going into the election with the same 39% rating.

After all, other presidents have had lower ratings at some point in their first terms and still gotten reelected. Reagan had 35% in January of 83; Clinton had 37% in May of 93--but both went on to a second term.

In contrast, Bush senior had an 89% approval rating in February of 91--and a year and a half later had dropped 60 points down to 29% and a one-term presidency.

It's a funny old world. Things change.
 
Last edited:

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
932
Reaction score
12
Points
103
I do agree things can change. I didn't imply that they can't, any more than this portion...

He can be at 29% right now... but unless someone provides another real alternative he's still getting the votes of many, MANY people. You may want to focus on finding someone who can beat Obama and actually has a real plan for the economy & job creation, instead of constantly talking about how much you dislike him.

...implies that low approval ratings don't matter. (It doesn't imply that.) I was just noting that approval ratings do matter, and that 39% is a very troubling approval rating, and that Obama's opponent doesn't matter a whole lot (unless they're immensely unpopular) once you get into the sub-40% range.

I do think "but unless someone provides another real alternative he's still getting the votes of many, MANY people" implicitly underestimates the electoral implications of low approval ratings a little.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Reaction score
11,610
Points
208
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
I do agree things can change . . .

I do think "but unless someone provides another real alternative he's still getting the votes of many, MANY people" implicitly underestimates the electoral implications of low approval ratings a little.

Since you're being so agreeable, I in turn will agree that low approval ratings going into an election can have a significant impact. After all, in 2008 Bush wasn't even running, and his super-low ratings certainly helped Obama! :smile:
 

B_VinylBoy

Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,365
Reaction score
36
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
I was just noting that approval ratings do matter, and that 39% is a very troubling approval rating, and that Obama's opponent doesn't matter a whole lot (unless they're immensely unpopular) once you get into the sub-40% range.

Many things besides the approval rating matter. I'm trying to factor all these variables, whereas the OP and some supporters of what little he said are positioning it to be the only thing that matters in this thread.

And Obama's opponent does matter. That's another one of the variables in this equation that many dissenters have no problem ignoring or avoiding when providing their opinions. Currently there is no official challengers against Obama for President. You have a bunch of people wanting to be that challenger on the GOP side and polls taken by their most devoted followers saying that "any Republican is better than Obama". But Romney, Bachmann, Paul, Cain, Perry, Huntsman, Gingrich and all the other wannabes are not "any Republican". They are specific people that don't poll well against the President when we go past the distortions and the misleading headlines and get to the specifics. It is thoroughly disingenuous to imply that his opponent doesn't matter and hide behind something as random as an approval rating and a supposed referendum, when full statistics clearly show that all of the possible contenders anyone has dreamt up at this point don't look good on an actual one-on-one against the President.

You know, maybe there is a person out there with the actual name of "Any Republican"? Well, until (s)he speaks and make themselves known I'm not buying the rhetoric. Same thing goes for some of the disgruntled progressives who think they can find someone who can pose a threat to Obama to force a Primary challenge. Put up the candidate and let's talk the issues. Otherwise, who really cares about whom someone personally likes or hates?

I do think "but unless someone provides another real alternative he's still getting the votes of many, MANY people" implicitly underestimates the electoral implications of low approval ratings a little.

No it doesn't. What I'm trying to do is put everything in their proper perspective so that viable information rises to the top of the list and other various bits of info are not inflated to being doctrine. With information provided by a few other thread contributors (including myself), we have seen a number of presidents and other politicians have a major dip in their approval rating somewhere in the middle of their current term, yet still win re-election.

Reagan had 35% in January 1983.
Clinton had 37% in May of 1993.
Harry Reid had 28%.
All lower than Obama's current rate and all have won re-election.
Shouldn't this be a clue as to how relevant this Gallup poll really is?
 
Last edited:

Thedrewbert

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Posts
840
Reaction score
3,439
Points
398
Age
43
Location
Pittsburgh
Since you're being so agreeable, I in turn will agree that low approval ratings going into an election can have a significant impact. After all, in 2008 Bush wasn't even running, and his super-low ratings certainly helped Obama! :smile:

Obama was elected 2.5 months after Lehmanns when bust. It was fresh in everyone's mind.

The thing about Obama's 39% approval rating is that everyone else's is much worse.
 

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
932
Reaction score
12
Points
103
VinylBoy et al.,

Sorry -- Probably overprecise, but I'm confused about what inferences people are drawing based on the posters' histories here, so it's the only way I can be clear.

I'm going to back up here because I don't think we actually disagree. I'm going to explain why I posted what I did, and then state what I'm intending to say. I just came into this thread and read the dude's original post (I don't know the backstory here) and then this, from VinylBoy:

He can be at 29% right now... but unless someone provides another real alternative he's still getting the votes of many, MANY people. You may want to focus on finding someone who can beat Obama and actually has a real plan for the economy & job creation, instead of constantly talking about how much you dislike him. Because we all know hate is in this season, and there's enough of it to go around on LPSG.

This was kind of a vague post -- I'm not sure if you mean to say Obama's approval ratings will approval as people make the comparison (maybe); or the other candidates' approval ratings will be worse than -18% (probably not); or that referenda elections tend to fail unless a strong alternative is presented (I disagree.) So, I just stated that there's a poor track record for winning re-election with under 40%. You guys then noted that approval ratings change over time, which is true, but doesn't conflict with anyone's post. You also note that Generic Republican tends to do better than most actual Republicans -- true throughout history, true this year, and immaterial to my point about anemic approval ratings resulting in incumbents losing because of referendum elections.

I don't think we're having a substantive disagreement, but I'll lay my cards out on the table:

1. Opponent approval rating does matter. If you look at the Nevada exit polls, the election became a referendum on both Reid and Angle, because both were unusually unpopular candidates.

2. HOWEVER, Reid benefited from netting the majority of ambivalent voters. Reid's approval rating was about 45% and not <40%, and Reid was going against an unusually unpopular opponent. I think, structurally, the national primary system encourages more electable candidates than a one-day state primary like Angle won.

3. As is obvious from the last two notes, there are lots of complex variables going on here, time being the biggest one. Obama is hardly hopeless. If his approval rating is <40% on Election Night, chances are he'll be screwed.

4. I agree with you about "Generic x" on average outpolling actual candidates; there being lots of time left; and weak (but not non-existent) correlation between approval ratings at this stage and election night.

5. If you're arguing that current approval ratings are a weak predictive mechanism of final results, you should do a statistical analysis instead of finding a few results to cherry-pick. That's like finding five methodologically perfect polls outside the MoE and then arguing that polling is an intrinsically poor predictive mechanism. But if you're trying to suggest it's a weak correlation, you're probably right, although your data are inadequate.

phew -- hope that brings us to the same page.
 
Last edited:

Thedrewbert

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Posts
840
Reaction score
3,439
Points
398
Age
43
Location
Pittsburgh
Right now, the only Republican candidate for President that beats Obama in the polls is "Generic Republican".

So far, he hasn't announced that he is running.
 

B_VinylBoy

Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,365
Reaction score
36
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
This was kind of a vague post -- I'm not sure if you mean to say Obama's approval ratings will approval as people make the comparison (maybe); or the other candidates' approval ratings will be worse than -18% (probably not); or that referenda elections tend to fail unless a strong alternative is presented (I disagree.) So, I just stated that there's a poor track record for winning re-election with under 40%.

That's true, however, I'm also going by the OP's presumptions and not just yours. I'm trying to put everything here in perspective.

You guys then noted that approval ratings change over time, which is true, but doesn't conflict with anyone's post. You also note that Generic Republican tends to do better than most actual Republicans -- true throughout history, true this year, and immaterial to my point about anemic approval ratings resulting in incumbents losing because of referendum elections.

Again, not just viewing this thread based on your responses.

1. Opponent approval rating does matter. If you look at the Nevada exit polls, the election became a referendum on both Reid and Angle, because both were unusually unpopular candidates.

2. HOWEVER, Reid benefited from netting the majority of ambivalent voters. Reid's approval rating was about 45% and not <40%, and Reid was going against an unusually unpopular opponent. I think, structurally, the national primary system encourages more electable candidates than a one-day state primary like Angle won.

I don't see it that way. Ultimately, even if both candidates were unpopular, voters in Nevada still had a choice and made it. Those who were truly not impressed with either Reid or Angle voted third party or didn't vote at all. The rest chose who they thought were the better of the two frontrunners, and somebody won. Politically & statistically, Reid shouldn't have won re-election. But Angle turned out to be so much worse of a candidate that she lost in a state that even most Democrats presumed should have "turned red" in 2010.

And yes, even if may not have been during the 2010 election, Harry Reid's approval rating in some polls was considerably less than 40%.

3. As is obvious from the last two notes, there are lots of complex variables going on here, time being the biggest one. Obama is hardly hopeless. If his approval rating is <40% on Election Night, chances are he'll be screwed.

Perhaps... but if the GOP candidate is worse, then the approval rating of the incumbent isn't going to play as much of a factor. Reid/Angle once again reflects this.

5. If you're arguing that current approval ratings are a weak predictive mechanism of final results, you should do a statistical analysis instead of finding a few results to cherry-pick. That's like finding five methodologically perfect polls outside the MoE and then arguing that polling is an intrinsically poor predictive mechanism. But if you're trying to suggest it's a weak correlation, you're probably right, although your data are inadequate.

I could produce a lot more instances, but I figured all I needed to do was list three recent ones in hopes to properly convey what I was trying to say. We only can post 10,000 words per post, ya know! :wink:

phew -- hope that brings us to the same page.

Like you said, we're kinda agreeing more than disagreeing here.
 

houtx48

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,918
Reaction score
206
Points
208
Other than Obama needs to get rid of Gietners, he is slogging though the mess he inherited. It took Clinton three years to start to clean up the mess of the first one and it was not near the shambles of the second one. Looking at the field of Republicans can't say there is one of them that is better than what's there why change horses in the middle of the stream?
 

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
932
Reaction score
12
Points
103
I think we're only out of harmony on two things:

I don't see it that way. Ultimately, even if both candidates were unpopular, voters in Nevada still had a choice and made it. Those who were truly not impressed with either Reid or Angle voted third party or didn't vote at all. The rest chose who they thought were the better of the two frontrunners, and somebody won.

I disagree. Look at the exit poll in Nevada. Only 37% of voters indicated they "Strongly Favored" their choice; the other 63% either had reservations or were voting against the opponent. Indeed, the race had as many people indicating they were voting against the opposition than for their candidate -- something that doesn't generally happen when an unpopular incumbent gets routed. (Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas lost by __ points and the voters still were twice as more likely to be voting for her than against.)

I could produce a lot more instances, but I figured all I needed to do was list three recent ones in hopes to properly convey what I was trying to say. We only can post 10,000 words per post, ya know! :wink:

Haha. I'd still prefer an analysis of what the correlation is -- I think it says a lot more than the exceptions, unless the person is claiming approval rating over a year before the election is destiny.
 

sargon20

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
22,157
Reaction score
31,233
Points
343
Location
Atlantis
Right now, the only Republican candidate for President that beats Obama in the polls is "Generic Republican".

So far, he hasn't announced that he is running.

They're all 'plug compatible'. By the time they've completed their purity tests and their pledges what you're left with is nothing more than a spokesmodel. One could 'hope' voters understand what they're getting when they vote for a spokemodel whose opinions and independent thoughts have been obliterated in order to pass the 'entrance exam' for candidacy but I've no confidence at all for your typical voter to understand that.
 

Hoss

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Posts
11,811
Reaction score
551
Points
148
Age
71
Location
Eastern town
Is anyone shocked?

That you put up the results......and without a link?

No, I'm not shocked.

On the topic of polls, they change hourly and according to who takes them and where and time of day, I don't invest in them.
 

Horrible

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Posts
427
Reaction score
2
Points
51
Location
Texas
Right now, the only Republican candidate for President that beats Obama in the polls is "Generic Republican".

So far, he hasn't announced that he is running.

Doesnt if just break your poor little democratic heart to know that A GENERIC INDIVIDUAL REPUBLICAN is beating out your particular pony? I mean, I would be pissed if I were a staunch BHO supporter and polls were showing him to be regarded as such a failure that any generic opposite would theoretically win by a landslide against him.

Btw, obamas approval index is a -23 today. Per Rasmussen.
 

B_VinylBoy

Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,365
Reaction score
36
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Doesnt if just break your poor little democratic heart to know that A GENERIC INDIVIDUAL REPUBLICAN is beating out your particular pony?

No... it actually tells us that currently there's no physical human being at this point from the Conservative camp that can poll better than Obama in an actual one-on-one. It's a major tell as to how angry, yet completely indecisive and disconnected they are from the process. They want "anyone but Obama", but don't know who. That's really pathetic considering all the "stellar" choices available (and I say that with a smirk, a slap on my thigh and a giggle). Staunch Conservatives would have this belief about any non-Republican in office. Doesn't matter if it was Obama, Clinton, Carter or any other past or future Democrat.

I mean, I would be pissed if I were a staunch BHO supporter and polls were showing him to be regarded as such a failure that any generic opposite would theoretically win by a landslide against him.

But that's you... who thinks seeing a poll result where a man or woman who doesn't exist doing better than the President means something. Do you believe in ghosts too? :rolleyes:

Btw, obamas approval index is a -23 today. Per Rasmussen.

And? Conservatives STILL don't have a man or woman that can beat Obama. You may want to get busy on that, instead of taking pop shots at Obama supporters for no reason beyond stroking your own politically slanted psyche.
 
Last edited: